Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 38

edX

ASUx
FSE100x Imagine, Design, Engineer
Disaster Relief Project

WEEK 15

Sparky Aid Designs

Final Design Report for Z-80 Lifesaver:


Long-Range, Multi-Mission Evacuation
and Resupply Aircraft for Zombie
Disaster Scenarios

Name:
WEI JIAN TEOH

Date:
27 NOVEMBER 2017
Abstract

The following report details the proposed design of the Z-80 Lifesaver, a single-engine, multi-
mission aircraft that is catered specifically for a zombie apocalypse disaster relief scenario
based out of New Delhi, India. The main stakeholder and customer is the Indian National
Disaster Response Force (NDRF). With New Delhi and surrounding environs being densely
populated urbanised areas as well as the speed and ferocity of a potential zombie disaster,
an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis found capacity to be a major factor. Operating
with a hybrid passenger/cargo configuration, the Z-80 evacuates 800 passengers a day to a
minimum distance of 500 miles while transporting 50000 lbs of supplies on the way back, and
is designed for 15-week long leases 3 times a year. The Z-80 incorporates a modular
palletised seating system that allows its passenger seating capacity to be swapped out for
cargo capacity, as well as built-in infection sensor systems that alert the cockpit and restrain
potential infected. The lifetime worth (LTW) and return on investment (ROI) of the Z-80 are
$36.6 million dollars and 43.49% respectively, making the project feasible if payload costs do
not have to be borne. Other than the hybrid configuration, the Z-80 may also be configured for
a cargo-only payload or supply-parachuting payload. The wing structure chosen are straight
wings with a span of 45 m and a round fibreglass wing spar. FAT testing shows that the Z-80
design has passed all 5 stipulated tests although problems with the test routines led to some
problems initially. Future developments of the Z-80 may incorporate stacked seating to
accommodate more cargo and passengers, in addition to improved automated features that
may sedate or even cure infected passengers on the spot.

1
Introduction

We are frequently bombarded with stories about the dead rising again and trying to devour
the living - the quintessential zombie apocalypse scenario. With the growing human
population of almost 7.5 billion and major advances in genetic engineering and
biotechnology, it is no stretch to say that a zombie outbreak is on the horizon. The location
that I have chosen is New Delhi. With a population of almost 22 million packed in a city, and
with such a high predicted zombie outbreak probability (RF = 0.97), its safe to say that if the
next zombie outbreak occurs sometime in the future, it might be there. Hence, the problem
chosen is how to provide disaster relief for a hypothetical zombie outbreak centred around
New Delhi, India.

Our primary stakeholder and target customer is the Indian National Disaster Management
Authority (NDMA), an agency of the Ministry of Home Affairs to coordinate responses to
man-made or natural disasters. Under the 2005 Disaster Management Act, a specialised
force constituted for the purpose of specialist response to a threatening disaster situation or
disaster was formed called the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF). I assume that
the NDRFs mandate includes dealing with a man-made disaster such as a zombie
outbreak, whether the release of the pathogen/parasite is accidental or intended (as a
terrorist act, etc.). Hence, the payer in this case is the Indian government. Other intended
possible customers would be international NGOs and other world governments, such as the
United States government, whose ring of military bases around the world may be useful in
such a situation. Other stakeholders involved may be the local municipal governments and
the citizens, which will be affected by such a disaster but will not be paying for our service.
(Arguably, the zombies are, yet shall not be considered as, a stakeholder in this project).

Considering the point of view of the Indian governments NDRF, I formulate the POV
statement: In a nation of a large population (e.g. India) composed of cities with high
population densities, how do you design an aircraft that is able to effectively deliver supplies
to regions under siege by zombies, as well as evacuate people on the way out? The problem
with current rescue aircraft is that they are usually converted cargo aircraft such as the C-
130 Hercules, C-17 Globemaster or converted airliners such as the Tupolev Tu-204. Do
these aircraft work in densely populated areas with makeshift runways? I propose the design
for the Z-80 Lifesaver, a non-combat, multi-mission aircraft that can both deliver
aid supplies and evacuate people on the way out.

After some research, it was found that these criteria were the most important in designing
the Z-80 Lifesaver.

1. Capacity
A large capacity is necessary to ensure that as many healthy people can be evacuated in
each flight as possible, as well as as many supplies can be delivered to the people in need
as possible. However, a higher capacity entails higher costs and more take-off weight,
something that will affect other design criteria. The capacity is measured by the number of
people that is able to fit in one flight as well as per day; and the weight of supplied that is
able to fit in one flight as well as per day.

2. Initial cost
A lower purchase cost would stimulate faster adoption of this proposed aircraft from our
customers, as well as allow mass deployment of this aircraft quicker. However, lowering the
cost of the aircraft necessitates trade-offs in capability and quality. The initial cost will be
given by the manufacturing cost plus markup.

2
3. Fuel consumption
Lower fuel costs stem from a higher fuel efficiency and lower fuel consumption, which may
help in scenarios, say, fuel rationing is in effect or fuel dumps were overrun by zombies.
Lower operating costs would reduce the burden of our customer, as well as allow more
aircraft to be kept ready and serviced at the same time. The fuel consumption will be given
by the amount of fuel used per flight as well as per km flew.

4. Speed
It is imperative to get healthy people out of the zombie-infected location quickly, as the
longer these people stay in that location, the higher the chances of getting infected and the
faster the spread of the disease. A greater speed would also allow for supplies to be
delivered more quickly as well as more flights per day. The speed is given in km/h.

5. Ruggedness
Due to the special local conditions in New Delhi and surrounding areas, the aircraft design
has to be as rugged as possible. The aircraft should require very little maintenance and
downtime, and should be serviceable with very few specialty parts, as supply chains might
be affected during such a disaster. The aircraft should be easily convertible for multi-mission
requirements. The aircraft should also be flyable from repurposed runways such as stretches
of freeways and long straight motorways, in the event that a nearby airport could not be
found or is in danger of being overrun. There is no easy way to measure ruggedness; hence,
the ruggedness is defined as the inverse of the maintenance costs.

Other factors like endurance, environmental effects and aesthetics are deemed unimportant
in a disaster-relief scenario such as this one. Other than the criteria above, the following
requirements are also devised:

Requirements based on evacuation needs:


1. The aircraft should be able to evacuate people a minimum of 500 miles per evacuation.
2. The aircraft should be able to evacuate 800 people per aircraft per day of operation.
3. The aircraft should be able to deliver medicine for another 12000 people per aircraft per
day of operation, without additional flights being used.
4. The aircraft should be able to operate 18 hours a day, with minimal maintenance time.
5. The aircraft should be able to operate only a maximum of 48 weeks a year.
6. The aircraft should have a maximum cruise speed of 310 m/s.
7. The aircraft should have a minimum climb rate of 2% of the cruise speed, in order to be
able to take off quickly enough.

Requirements based on local needs:


1. The aircraft should be able to take off from both standard airport runways and repurposed
runways consisting of freeways and straight stretches of road.
2. The aircraft should be able to take off from runways < 2000 ft (ca. 600 metres).
3. The aircraft should be rugged and easy to service.

Note that due to a lack of information on the local environs in New Delhi, some conjecture is
used in formulating the requirements for the local needs. The Analytical Hierarchy Process
(AHP) of the criteria is as attached below.

3
Initial Fuel Relative
Capacity Speed Ruggedness Total
cost consumption weight
Capacity 1 3 2 1.5 1 8.500 0.283
Initial cost 0.333 1 0.5 0.5 1.5 3.833 0.128
Fuel
0.5 2 1 0.5 1 5.000 0.167
consumption
Speed 0.667 2 2 1 0.333 6.000 0.200
Ruggedness 1 0.667 1 3 1 6.667 0.222
Total 30.00 1.000

From the AHP, it was determined that capacity is the most important criterion, followed by
ruggedness, speed, fuel consumption, and lastly initial cost. Capacity is the most important
criterion, given that New Delhi and surroundings have very dense, urbanized populations,
and it is imperative to get as many civilians out as possible before they are infected.
Ruggedness is also important as during the outbreak, serviceable airports may be hard to
come by and we might be forced to use makeshift airstrips. Speed and fuel consumption are
important too, but some trade-offs can be made here. Lastly, in a real zombie outbreak, the
government should be willing to foot the bill - hence, initial cost is given the lowest priority.

The Z-80 Lifesaver, as its moniker may imply, should be a lifesaver during such a zombie
outbreak. It must be able to be deployed to evacuate civilians and deliver supplies into
dangerous zombie-stricken zones, and even better if it is able to do both at once. It should
also be rugged enough to operate from improvised airstrips. Further explanations about the
mission profiles for the Z-80 will be described below.

Background

The zombie apocalypse scenario is not new - in fact, it started with the 1967 film Night of
the Living Dead and many other films, novels and video games. The (fictional) rules of a
zombie apocalypse are mostly codified by Max Brooks The Zombie Survival Guide and
World War Z which claim to be the (fictional) authoritative source on zombies. 1 2

The threat of viruses or parasites turning humans into bloodthirsty zombies may soon enter
the realm of real life though, with the discovery of the parasite Toxoplasma gondii, 3 which is
sometimes called the mind-altering parasite. 4 This parasite is known to infect rats and
induce them take more risky behaviour in order to promote its own reproduction (and the
demise of its host). This parasite can be transmitted to humans, and some estimates
suggest up to 50% of the world population may already have been infected, along with
numerous cats and other animal species. (For now, most studies actually suggest theres no
cause for harm, but who knows?) 4

Another candidate for the zombification virus is the rabies virus, 5 which is transmitted
through biting and induces aggressive biting behaviour in the infected. 6 Even worse is the
possibility of viruses or parasites combining together, mutating or being tweaked to create
the quintessential zombie virus 5 7 - there is a non-zero probability of this happening,
although in real terms, the probability is miniscule.

No matter how miniscule, the Z-80 Lifesaver will be a real lifesaver when it comes to a real
zombie apocalypse scenario due to its multi-mission capability. First, the aircraft should be
able to utilize its modular configuration to evacuate civilians and carry supplies on the return
trip. Next, the aircraft may be configured only to carry supplies to the stricken zones, or if the

4
situation becomes dire or a suitable landing zone cannot be found, drop supplies onto the
target zone by parachute.

This modular, multi-mission capability would make the Z-80 very useful during such a
disaster, as the plane will be able to evacuate civilians (hence reducing the potential number
of zombie infectees trapped in the area) and resupply zones under siege (hence providing
treatment and supplies for those trapped), which are the two main imperatives of a zombie
outbreak. Sometimes, an area may be deemed safe or fortified enough that no immediate
evacuation is required, or there is no available airstrip for evacuation. In such cases, the
second and third mission profiles will be helpful to allow the survivors to hold out and wait for
relief or extraction by land (e.g. by military forces). This capability will also make it very
useful in many other disaster scenarios, such as floods and earthquakes which often afflict
urban areas in India and have similar requirements to provide supplies and evacuate
civilians as soon as possible.

There is currently no gap in the market and no demand from the Indian government for a
zombie disaster relief aircraft. However, should such a disaster occur (or enough proof-of-
concept is presented), current aircraft are unsuitable for the role. Most current aircraft are
either commercial passenger aircraft (e.g. Airbus A380, Boeing 737) for carrying people, or
military transport aircraft (e.g. C-130 Hercules, Ilyushin Il-76, Antonov An-24) for carrying
materiel and equipment. 8 9

However, among all these competitive designs, passenger aircraft have limited cargo
capacity (mainly just to carry airline luggage), and military transport aircraft generally need to
be specially installed with seats to carry passengers comfortably (which takes time). No
aircraft exists that can do both missions, simultaneously, without extensive retrofitting - a
future gap that the Z-80 is expected to address, being the first of its kind that is designed to
do both from the ground up.

Design Overview

The Z-80 Lifesaver is a single-engine, short-to-medium-range jet aircraft (considered to be


long-range for the purposes of this project) and based out of New Delhi, India. The aircraft
may be leased out three times in a year (15 weeks per lease period) for a total of 45 weeks
and the remaining 7 weeks of the year for maintenance.

Summarising, the three main mission profiles are:


1. Hybrid cargo and personnel transport: carry 168 passengers per trip on the way out 500
km away, and 50000 lbs (224 kN) of cargo on the way back. The total journey time is 1.43
hours (1 hour 26 mins) for a 500 mi. evacuation distance.
2. Cargo transport only: carry 50000 lbs (224 kN) of cargo (supplies)
3. Airdropping supplies: drop 50000 lbs (224 kN) by parachute of cargo (supplies)

A simple 3-view diagram of the Z-80 Lifesaver is shown. It has a similar layout to most other
turboprop aircraft, with a single engine at the tail and the cargo ramp at the back of the
plane.

5
This aircraft was designed from the ground-up for a zombie apocalypse (despite there being
other disasters that may occur) as no current aircraft is able to cater to the two major needs
of a zombie outbreak: evacuating people and delivering supplies at the same time. This is a
godsend when looking at the speed and ferocity of how zombies may overrun landing strips
as well as the difficulty of mustering aircraft for these purposes. Hence, every available
aircraft will have to do as much as possible. The Z-80 is a flexible aircraft that adequately
responds to the two major needs of a zombie outbreak all in a single aircraft.

In order to achieve the mission profiles, the aircraft has the following performance
characteristics. Additional information is available in the next section.
Engine 1x CF6-80C2 jet engine
Operational empty weight (OEW) 361.51 kN
Rate of climb 427.07 km/h (118.63 m/s)
Cruise speed 1112.23 km/h (695.14 mph)
Endurance 2.13 hours (2 hours 8 minutes)
Range 2339.94 km (1462.46 miles)
Max takeoff weight 604.51 kN
Payload capacity 224 kN (50000 lbs) (cargo and hybrid configuration)
Capacity 168 passengers (hybrid configuration)

To achieve the goals of this aircraft design, the aircraft is designed with a modular task in
mind with a system of palletized seating that can be swapped out for extra cargo space if
necessary. I propose that this shortens the required turnaround time from 3 to 2 hours, which
is in between the turnaround time of a short and long-range aircraft. The concept is shown in
the photos below:

6
Left: Palletised modular seating system (Source: AAR Corp)
Right: Typical cargo configuration (Source: USAF)

The aircraft has an initial manufacturing cost of $84.14 million and total annual operating
costs of $2.32 million. However, taking three leases at a benefit of $4.85 million per lease,
the average earnings is $14.6 million per year for three zombie disasters planned. Over the
aircrafts lifespan of 17 years, the lifetime worth (LTW) of the plane is $36.6 million dollars
with a return on investment (ROI) of 43.49%. Hence, this project is certainly feasible.

However, this calculation assumes that the cost of the payload is borne by the governments
and NGOs - we only provide a charter service of sorts. If we were to bear the cost of the
whole payload, the payload itself will cost a whopping $806.77 million dollars per year, an
astronomical sum. In a real zombie apocalypse, we would expect many parties to donate in
part or in full the stated requirements instead of charging for them. The full calculations are
available in the Appendices.

In addition, this aircraft incorporates a revolutionary infection sensor detector in its palletised
seat modules. An EEG sensor incorporate in the headrest measures the brain waves of
infected passengers and alerts the cockpit if a suspected infected is detected. The system
then locks down the seat restraints, preventing the infected subject from possibly turning into
a zombie on board and infecting other passengers, as well as allow for a proper (medical
and armed) response at the landing zone.

Two main trade-offs have been implemented in this aircrafts design. Even though the
recommendations state to evacuate 3500 people per day, I felt that that was difficult to
incorporate in the mission profile given the need for a multi-mission aircraft. Hence, the
plane is designed to evacuate only 800 people per day but gains a multi-mission capability.
Next, the carrying capacity of the aircraft was balanced with the planes range and
endurance. A large carrying capacity would allow more people to be evacuated at once, yet
increasing the carrying capacity (and hence the planes load) might decrease the range and
endurance. Hence, a compromise was set to allow for the 1000 people/day target to be
reached.

In addition, another trade-off was the number of engines. Increasing the number of engines
used would allow the aircraft to carry a larger payload, as well as have a higher rate of climb
and higher cruise speed. However, increasing the number of engines also increases initial
costs, maintenance costs as well as fuel consumption. In the end, only one engine was
deemed enough for the task at hand, as increasing the number of engines gave no tangible
benefit in this case. The latter two trade-offs will be discussed in depth in the next section.

7
Subsystem Description
Aircraft Performance Subsystem

The same three-view diagram for the Z-80 Lifesaver is as shown below:

The aircraft looks similar to many other small jet aircraft and has a size comparable to that of
the C-130 Hercules, with a fuselage length of 38.57 m, height of 3.06 m and width of 3.66 m.
This allows it to fit into most existing hangars. Of note is that this aircraft only has a single
CF6-80C2 jet engine, mounted on the tail between the rudder and the fuselage. This is
because the single engine is deemed enough to provide the required lift, thrust, speed and
climb rate, as well as reducing maintenance load and time.

The aircraft has a 3-metre long loading ramp at the back of the fuselage for easy entrance
and exit of cargo and passengers. The whole cargo bay runs 18.9 m from the back of the
aircraft, with the wing area taking up 2 m and the part in front of the wing (which houses the
cockpit and essential systems) taking up 17.67 m, where the cargo-bay-to-fuselage-length
ratio of 0.49 is based on a standard a C-130 Hercules. The cargo bay is serviced by three
exits - the cargo ramp, as well as emergency exits on the wing and the middle of the cargo
bay (9 m from the tail end). The plane has a wingspan of 45 m and wing thickness of 0.3 m
and uses rectangular wings for all control surfaces.

Combined, all these dimensions provide the following performance characteristics:


Operational empty weight (OEW) 361.51 kN
Rate of climb 427.07 km/h (118.63 m/s)
Cruise speed 1112.23 km/h (695.14 mph)
Endurance 2.13 hours (2 hours 8 minutes)
Range 2339.94 km (1462.46 miles)
Max takeoff weight 604.51 kN

8
The two trade-offs implemented are the limitations on the cargo payload as well as the
number of engines. In a zombie outbreak situation like this, a high cargo payload as well as
a high passenger capacity is desirable for a rescue and resupply situation. However,
increasing the cargo payload increases the take-off weight, fuel consumption as well as
decreasing range and endurance. Increasing the range may be crucial to bring the evacuees
to a safer area, and also allow cargo to be shipped from airstrips further away.

After some trial and error, it was decided to cap the payload at 49000 lbs (218 kN), rounded
off to 225 kN to allow for some extra weight in certain situations. The range is set at 2340 km
and endurance set at 2.13 hours, which is more than the required 1600 km and 1.43 hours
respectively. At a maximum capacity of 168 people per trip and 5 trips per day, it is still
possible for the aircraft to evacuate 840 passengers per day, achieving the target of 800
people per day per aircraft.

Increasing the number of engines used would allow the aircraft to carry a larger payload, as
well as have a higher rate of climb and higher cruise speed. However, increasing the number
of engines also increases costs, maintenance costs as well as fuel consumption.

After some trial and error, it was decided to only have one CF6-8062 jet engine in the
aircraft, as it was sufficient to provide a cruise speed of 308.9 m/s (under the stipulated limit
of 310 m/s) and a rate of climb of 118.6 m/s (higher than 2% of cruise speed). The single-
engine still provides a range of 2340 km and endurance of 2.13 hours within the
requirements as stipulated above. The screenshot from the Aircraft Simulator show how
these values were obtained.

9
Interior Design Subsystem

Since this aircraft is specially designed for a zombie apocalypse scenario, all
payload/mission combinations assume 3 zombie outbreak scenarios annually (15 weeks per
outbreak for a total of 45 weeks/year). Three possible mission profiles for the airplane are:

A. Hybrid cargo and personnel transport


In the intended design configuration, the aircraft should be able to airlift in required medicine,
weapons and supplies to the target zone, while still allowing it to evacuate civilians out in the
return flight.

B. Cargo transport only


In this configuration, the aircraft would carry only supplies into the zombie-stricken zone,
making it a dedicated cargo aircraft. This would allow the aircraft to be packed to the brim
with supplies and have a slightly shorter turnaround time, as there is no need to wait for
passengers to disembark and to remove the seating system.

C. Airdropping supplies
The aircraft should be able to airdrop supplies to a target zone by parachute (due to it being
under siege and/or lack of suitable landing strips). Hence, the supplies will have to be
packaged in specially designed containers with parachutes that open once dropped. The
retrofitting required may lead to cost increases, and since the aircraft does not land at the
target, it needs to carry enough fuel for the return trip.

To pick the best mission profile, the AHP from above is used to create the decision matrix:
Design
Criteria Weight A B C
Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score
Capacity 0.283 5 1.417 3 0.850 3 0.850
Initial cost 0.128 4 0.511 5 0.639 4 0.511
Fuel
0.167 4 0.667 5 0.833 4 0.667
consumption
Speed 0.200 4 0.800 4 0.800 4 0.800
Ruggedness 0.222 4 0.889 5 1.111 5 1.111
Final score 4.283 4.233 3.939

In terms of capacity, Design A leads the race due to its mission capabilities to carry both
passengers and cargo in its mission, whereas Designs B and C can carry only cargo (as
shown). In terms of initial cost, the specialised pallet seat system in Design A and the
requirement to attach parachutes to each pallet in Design C both lead to cost increases.

Fuel consumption for A and B are almost similar, but due to the requirement for Design A to
carry fuel for fully-loaded trips to and fro, Design A needs more fuel for the trip. Since Design
B flies back empty, the plane can afford to carry less fuel. Design C requires the need for
sustained low-level flight and thus also require more fuel. In terms of speed, all three designs
should be able to fly at similar speeds due to having similar configurations and similar
payloads. In terms of ruggedness, the requirement for extensive retrofitting and quick
turnaround times may make Design A less rugged.

In conclusion, Design A seems to be the best choice due to the multi-mission capability in
one go, which is of utmost importance in a zombie apocalypse. Despite requiring more
maintenance, more fuel and a higher cost, Design As versatility makes it the clear winner in

10
such a situation. Design A also achieves requirements of 800 people evacuated per day and
12000 doses of medicine supplied daily. The interior arrangement for Design A is shown:

Cargo configuration
Top
Tents

4 ft
6 ft
4 ft

7 ft 7 ft
4 ft 4 ft 4 ft 4 ft 4 ft 6 ft 6 ft 2.5 ft
1.5 ft

Food EEG Pills Medical Stretchers Generator


supplies + + Fuel Seats
kits

Front
Evacuation configuration

Foldout seats Top


1.5 ft

seating pattern repeated throughout

4.5 ft

7 ft Pallet seating
system

Front
In determining the interior layout of the plane (especially for the evacuation configuration),
several considerations due to human factors as well as ergonomics were taken. Several
aisles were left between seats to allow passengers to enter and exit comfortably and without
jostling. Passengers were also given enough legroom to be able to sit comfortably, as well
as seat restraints in case of turbulence (as well as the side function of restraining suspected

11
infected). Foldout seats at the sides were reserved for passengers for special needs which
may have difficulty entering the seat pallets while in a rush.

Wing Design Subsystem

In choosing the finalised wing design, several plots had been made of how these three
factors affect the lift-to-drag ratio: wingspan, angle-of-attack and camber, as shown in the
three plots below:

Effect of span on lift-to-drag (LD) ratio


40

35

30
Lift-to-drag (LD) ratio

y = 3E-05x3 - 0.0086x2 + 0.8658x + 4.6751


25 R = 0.9999

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Span (m)

Effect of angle of attack on lift-to-drag (LD) ratio


200

180

160
Lift-to-drag (LD) ratio

140

120

100

80
y = -0.1416x3 + 4.3521x2 - 45.203x + 183.37
60 R = 0.9984
40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Angle of attack (degrees)

12
Effect of camber on lift-to-drag (LD) ratio
40.00

35.00
y = -655.89x2 + 132.74x + 29.901
30.00 R = 0.9996
Lift-to-drag (LD) ratio

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Camber

In the end, each parameter was carefully scrutinised and the best value for each parameter
was chosen sequentially. A wing with 45 m span was chosen as it was not too long (can fit
into most small hangars without the need to incorporate folding-wing systems) while still
providing a good amount of lift-to-drag ratio. An angle of attack of 10 degrees was chosen as
after that value the LD ratio curve starts to slope downwards (suggesting diminishing
returns). A camber of 0.08 was then chosen as this value provides a high LD ratio (similar to
camber 0.10) without excessive wing curvature which increases material stresses.

For the wing spar, fibreglass was chosen as the material as it provides a good balance
between price, density and strength, while being resistant to corrosion (c.f. metal) or rotting
(c.f. wood). The spar area chosen was a circle, as it allows for a smaller cross-sectional area
while providing the same wing strength (although this choice was almost arbitrary).

The picture of the chosen wing shape, as well as proof from the Zhukovsky Aerofoil program
that the chosen wing spar is able to take the expected load without extreme deflection, is as
shown below.

13
14
Automation

An automated feature introduced in the aircraft is the ability to detect infected passengers
and restrain them automatically. The purpose of this feature is to stop infected people from
turning into zombies onboard. The presence of a zombie on board will cause needless
chaos and damage, as well as potentially infecting other passengers (who will have nowhere
to run or hide on a plane). All passengers would benefit from this feature.

Each passenger would be required to put their hands into restraints as well as tighten their
seat belt before takeoff. An EEG sensor incorporated in the headrest will detect the persons
alpha waves in an EEG reading. Since an infected person has a much higher alpha wave
reading (> 75 mV) than a normal person (20 - 75 mV), the EEG sensor would trigger when
the detected reading is above the threshold. Hence, the seat belt will be locked tight, and a
message will be sent to the destination. Upon disembarkation, the suspected infected
passenger will be restrained in his seat until medics (and armed soldiers) can arrive and
ascertain his/her condition. This makes it easier to contain infected suspects, potentially
making it easier for the Indian government to contain the outbreak and hence creating value
for our main stakeholder.

The sensors used will be a pressure sensor in the seat and a voltage sensor in the headrest.
The other parts of the system include the seat restraints and the seatbelt itself. The three
UML diagrams are shown below.

1. Use Case Diagram


Seat with Infection Sensor

Replace
parts

Safety
Recalibrate
Maintenance
Passenger Alert
EEG destination Clean
Sensor

Restraint
Weather
Lightning
Elements
Infected Turbulence

This automated system has relatively few actors. The first would be normal, uninfected
passengers - the seats should provide a reasonable level of safety and security expected in
a flight. For suspected infected passengers, the seats should also provide detection as well
as restraining them (from thrashing around/attacking other passengers). The seats will
require maintenance to clean them, replace faulty or damaged sensors and restraints as well
as checking their calibrations (to reduce false positives). The elements might have also an
impact, as lightning strikes and turbulence are common occurrences.

15
2. Sequence Diagram

EEG Pilot Seat


Infected Computer
Sensor Console Restraints

HeadRestOn
CheckReading

ReadingAboveThreshold

CheckReading2

ReadingAboveThreshold

CheckReading3
WarningLightOn

EngageRestraints

The sequence diagram shows what happens when a potentially infected person sits into the
seat. The EEG sensor reports the value to the computer which determines if the reading is
over the threshold value. If true, the EEG checks again twice (at 1 minute intervals) to
determine if the person is really infected or that is just a false positive. If all three times report
readings higher than the threshold value, the computer sends a warning to the pilot console,
which will then be reported to the destination so a medical team and armed escort can be
prepared. The computer also engages the seat restraints in case the person turns into a
zombie mid-flight. The user will not be informed that he has been suspected.

3. Activity Diagram

User sits on seat

EEG measures reading

NO

Alpha V > 75
YES Count YES
Add 1 to Alert pilot console
mV? suspicion count >3? Engage restraints
Engage restraints

NO

The activity diagram shows what happens when a potentially infected person sits into the
seat, similarly to the sequence diagram. The EEG sensor reports the value to the computer
which determines if the reading is over the threshold value. If true, the EEG checks again
twice (at 1 minute intervals) to determine if the person is really infected or that is just a false
positive. If all three times report readings higher than the threshold value, the computer

16
sends a warning to the pilot console, which will then be reported to the destination so a
medical team and armed escort can be prepared. The computer also engages the seat
restraints in case the person turns into a zombie mid-flight. If false, the computer logs the
anomaly, but no action is taken.

The Arduino model (produced in TinkerCAD) used to implement the automation is attached
below. The full Arduino code is attached in the appendix.

The pressure sensor is simulated by a pushbutton (simulates the user lying on the seat), and
the EEG sensor is represented by a power supply (to measure voltage). Hence, the input
sensors are a pushbutton and a power supply. The tightening of the seatbelt will be
represented by a servo (to lock the seatbelt), while the warning light that flashes on the
pilots dashboard is represented by an LED. Hence, the output sensors (actuators) are a
LED and a servo.

The automation works relatively well in theory. However, because of an inability to find the
exact components required as planned, I had to substitute for other components which do
not have the exact functionality. Due to the assumptions of using a power supply as the
human brain and its EEG sensor, a pushbutton as a pressure sensor and a servo as a
seltbelt tightener, all necessary assumptions in the simulated environment, the automated
feature is unlikely to work well in practice.

Despite the fact that the servo should kick in and the LED should glow after 3 seconds of >
75 mV voltage supplied to the pin, sometimes this does not occur. However, the system
kicks in when a voltage of >200 mV is applied for 3 seconds. This may perhaps be due to a
mistake in the coding on the voltage detecting pin. In practice, this may lead to some
infected not being picked up by the sensor, as some infected may have alpha waves ranging
from 75-200 mV, which makes this system rather risky to implement in its current stage. Of
note is that the power supply models a constant DC voltage, while in reality human brain
waves are sinusoidal, thus possibly creating a new source of error during implementation.

17
Testing and Evaluation

In order to truly ensure that my design meets the customers requirements, I devised 5 FAT
Testing Procedures for 5 main chosen requirements stipulated in the introduction. The other
two requirements are easily seen in practice and should not need testing. The original 5
requirements chosen for the FAT testing are:

1. The aircraft should be able to evacuate people a minimum of 500 miles per evacuation.
2. The aircraft should be able to evacuate 1000 people per aircraft per day of operation.
3. The aircraft should be able to deliver medicine for another 3000 people per aircraft per
day of operation, without additional flights being used.
4. The aircraft should have a maximum cruise speed of 310 m/s.
5. The aircraft should have a minimum climb rate of 2% of the cruise speed, in order to be
able to take off quickly enough.

The full testing procedures are shown in the Appendices. Due to a lack of an actual aircraft
prototype to work with, and all the chosen requirements being related to the aircraft
performance, all the FAT tests are only done in the Airplane Simulator and by using
Microsoft Excel on a Windows 10 laptop. All FAT tests are carried out by a colleague
(university coursemate), to minimise bias and to catch elusive mistakes.

After carrying out the FAT tests, I realised that due to the complexity of this project, a cursory
(or even a thorough) glance through all the design requirements may fail to notice even
major shortcomings. For starters, I realised that the original aircraft design failed FAT Test
#2 (Evacuate 1000 people per aircraft per day of operation) as calculations show that only
840 people can be evacuated per day. This is not a design flaw of the aircraft - I had simply
neglected to include the aircrafts downtime (meaning that the actual available flight hours is
only 18 hours/day instead of the whole 24 hours) when devising the FAT testing procedures.
After which, the FAT testing procedures was corrected to FAT Test #2a (Evacuate 800
people per aircraft per day of operation), which the Z-80 passed by being able to evacuate
840 people per day of operation. Hence, I realised that having a fresh pair of eyes allowed
me to spot careless mistakes such as these, which might be disastrous in a real project!

Another eureka! moment happened when the testing procedures for FAT Test 3 (Deliver
medicine for 3000 people per flight). The Z-80 performed admirably well, being able to
deliver medicine for over 13800 people per flight! My (rather observant and curious)
colleague alerted me to this fact and suggested that I had set the bar too low for the FAT
test. It turns out that this test was devise for an earlier iteration of the Z-80 which had a
limited medicine-carrying capacity. This made me realise that the FAT test is only as good
as how the prerequisites and requirements are set. The requirements set should tally with
the customers requirements; otherwise, set the requirements mistakenly too high and your
design will fail every time; set the requirements mistakenly too low, and your design will pass
every time! Learning from this mistake, a new FAT Test #3a was devised for the new
iteration of the Z-80 which targeted medicine for 12000 people to be delivered per flight. This
iteration of the Z-80 passed this new FAT test.

Other than the obstacles met above, the Z-80 design performed admirably in the other tests:
able to evacuate people to a distance of 730 miles (greater than the 500-mile requirement);
having a maximum cruise speed of 308.9 m/s (less than the 310 m/s limit), and having a rate
of climb of 118.63 m/s (38.4% of cruise speed, greater than the 2% requirement). An insight
from this test was the results of the test are only as good as how the FAT test is devised and
how the requirements are stipulated - which must be realistic and aligned to the actual
customers requirements.

18
Conclusion

In short, the Z-80 Lifesaver is a proposed design for a single-engine, multi-mission jet
transport aircraft for both cargo and passengers specially tailored for a zombie apocalypse
disaster relief scenario. The aircraft is similar in size to a C-130 Hercules and with a
revolutionary palletised seating system is able to carry either 168 passengers or up to 50000
lbs of cargo. With its excellent performance statistics, the Z-80 evacuates 800 people per
day or delivers medicine to potentially 13000 infected or both at once. With a lifetime net
worth (LTW) of and return of investment (ROI) of , this aircraft is a suitable investment for the
future, considering the fact that the probability of a zombie apocalypse happening grows
stronger by the day.

The key features of this aircraft that sets it apart from competitors is it was built from the
ground-up for a zombie disaster. Hence, it includes two unique features: first, a modular
palletised seating system that allows quick swap-out from passenger plane to cargo plane;
and a built-in infection sensor system to restrain suspected infectees. The Z-80 Lifesaver is
the first aircraft in the world to deliver both these astonishing features while having such a
good price and low costs, making it the pioneer aircraft for readying against a zombie
outbreak.

If more time and resources were given, the aircraft could be improved by increasing the
passenger capacity and cargo payload in order to fulfil its design goals more effectively. One
suggested improvement is to have modular stacked seats, in order to increase passenger
capacity while utilising the currently unused storage space. A future improvement will be to
the seat infection sensor by allowing not just restraining of potential infected passengers, but
also to inject a dose of sedative (or for confirmed infections, the antidote) in order to make it
easier for the medical team to handle them at the destination, as well as reducing the
chances of infection spreading on board.

I feel that the design process was very interesting and a big eye-opening experience for me.
I have previously thought that the process of designing a product is basically just trying to
build a prototype first and just playing it by ear, but now I realise that even before building a
prototype theres so much brainstorming and validation to be done. After doing the project, I
realised that the customer is a major stakeholder and the customers needs is the forefront
of the project - previously, I thought it was the firm that dictated the features their offerings
provide to the customer, but now I realise this is not the case. As I am a chemical
engineering undergraduate, I hope that I can used the design process I learnt from this
project in designing chemical process plants, which consists of various intricate subsystems
(that may actually explode or leak if not designed well!) This project has helped me to solve
larger problems in chemical engineering by teaching me to think not only in subsystems but
also the effect of the subsystem on the big picture; as well as how to prioritise criteria that
seem equally important at first glance, a decision that will come in handy in real-life
engineering design when constraints such as time and cost enter the picture.

19
Works Cited

All citations are reported in the American Psychological Association (APA) style, 6th edition.
For simplicity purposes, the lecture slides, videos and documents from FSE100x are not
reported here.

1. Brooks, M. (2010). The Zombie Survival Guide. London: Gerald Duckworth & Company.
2. Brooks, M. (2010). World War Z. London: Gerald Duckworth & Company.
3. US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017, August 25). Parasites -
Toxoplasmosis (Toxoplasma infection). Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/toxoplasmosis/gen_info/faqs.html
4. Neuroskeptic. (2016, February 10). The Myth of Mind-Altering Parasite Toxoplasma
Gondii? Discover Magazine Blogs. Retrieved from
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2016/02/20/myth-mind-altering-parasite-
toxoplasma-gondii/#.WhrEMTdLe00
5. Dell'Amore, C. (2013, June 25). World War Z: Could a Zombie Virus Happen? National
Geographic Voices. Retrieved from https://voices.nationalgeographic.org/2013/06/25/world-
war-z-could-a-zombie-virus-happen/
6. US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017, September 28). Rabies. Retrieved
from https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/index.html
7. Than, K. (2010, October 27). "Zombie Virus" Possible via Rabies-Flu Hybrid? National
Geographic News. Retrieved from
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/1001027-rabies-influenza-zombie-virus-
science/
8. Bennett, J. (2016, Feb 11). 11 of the Largest Cargo Planes in the Sky. Popular
Mechanics. Retrieved from http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/g2467/11-of-the-largest-
cargo-planes-in-the-sky/
9. Central Intelligence Agency. (1998). Competitive Aspects of Soviet and Western
Transport Aircraft. CIA Economic Intelligence Report [declassified]. Retrieved from
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000309823.pdf

i
Appendices
A. Financial Analysis Calculations

The benefit per lease, B is calculated from the formula


=

where F is the risk factor (0.97) and R is the lease rate for 15 weeks.

The total fuel weight per day, Wfuel is calculated from


1600
=

where N is the number of trips taken per day, R is the aircraft range and Wtank is the weight
of fuel carried in a single tank.

Detailed financial calculations are presented below:

Information
Flight time 1.43 hours
Flight range 2339.94 km
Required flight range 1600 km
Available flight hours 18 hours
Hours taken per trip 3.43 hours
Number of daily trips 5.25
Actual number of daily trips 5
Daily flight distance 8000 km/day
Daily expected flight time 7.15 hours/day
Daily maximum possible flight
time 10.65 hours/day
Number of weeks in use per
lease 15 weeks
Number of disasters planned 3
Total lease time 45 weeks/year
Total expected flight distance 2520000 km/year
Annual expected flight time 2252.25 hours/year
Annual maximum possible flight
time 3355.884 hours/year
Flight distance limit over lifetime 4.35E+07 km
No. of years of aircraft liftspan 17.26 years
Aircraft lifespan taken 17 years

Other Performance Characteristics


Engine 1x CF6-80C2 jet engine
OEW 361.51 kN
Rate of climb 118.63 m/s
Cruise speed 308.95 m/s
Endurance 2.13 hours
Range 2339.94 km
Max takeoff weight 604.51 kN
Payload capacity 225 kN

ii
Capacity 168 persons
Fuel weight 30 kN

Initial costs include:


Aircraft manufacturing costs
Wing spar costs
Seat system costs

Manufacturing costs 8.41E+07 dollars


Resale cost 4.20E+06 dollars

Wing spar
Cost per m3 8390 dollars/m3
Cross sectional area 0.05067 m2
Span 45 m2
Wing spar costs 19130.46 dollars

Palletised seating system


Cost per person 320 dollars
Total cost 53760 dollars

Annual costs include:


Engine OMR costs
Pilot & flight crew
Annual fuel costs

Engine OMR 350000 dollars/year


Pilot & flight crew 200000 dollars/year
Annual fuel costs 1.77E+06 dollars/year

Lifetime worth (LTW) calculations


Annual interest rate 7%
Total initial costs 8.41E+07 dollars
Total annual costs 2.32E+06 dollars

Lease benefit 4.85E+06 dollars


Total lease income 1.46E+07 dollars

PV of initial cost 8.41E+07 dollars


PV of annual costs 2.26E+07 dollars
PV of lease income 1.42E+08 dollars
PV of final resale 1330749.9 dollars

PV of all costs 1.07E+08 dollars


PV of all benefits 1.43E+08 dollars
LTW 3.66E+07 dollars
ROI 43.49 %

iii
B. Interior Design Subsystem - Payload Items and Arrangement

A. Hybrid cargo and personnel transport


For this mission, the plane has to carry cargo on the way in and people on the way out, with
a modular seating system. To make it easier for turnaround, the seats are attached to a
large pallet system that can be assembled on the ground, and installed or removed at will in
situ. Due to the need to carry the empty seats (unassembled) in the cargo hold, this reduces
the payload available for other uses. The payload designs are shown separately below.

Cargo payload:
No. Name Qty Dimensions Weight Total weight
(lbs) (lbs)
1 Food/water bundle 8 4 ft long x 4 ft wide x 4 900 7200
(576 meals + water ft tall
each)
2 EEG Monitor 72 1 ft long x 0.75 ft wide x 80 5760
1.5 ft high
3 Industrial Generator 2 2.5 ft long x 1 ft wide x 1300 2600
1.5 ft high
4 Emergency Relief Tent 80 3 ft long x 1 ft wide x 1 86 6880
(for 5 persons each) ft high
5 First Aid Kits 192 1 ft wide x 1 ft long x 1 3 576
(for 10 people each) ft tall
6 Emergency 112 1 ft long x 1 ft wide x 10 1120
Preparedness Kits 1.5 ft tall
7 Rescue Blankets 10 1 ft long x 1 ft wide x 1.5 150
(pack of 12) 0.5 ft tall
8 Pill Boxes 64 1 ft long x 1 ft wide x 1 43 2752
(contains 216 bottles) ft tall
9 Oxygen Mask and 200 0.5 ft long x 0.5 ft wide 5 1000
Tank x 1 ft tall
10 Fuel barrel 10 0.75 ft long x 0.75 ft 400 4000
wide x 1 ft tall
12 Stretchers 200 6 ft long x 2 ft wide x 1 5 1000
ft tall
13 Pallet seat system + 16 7 ft long x 6 ft wide x 2 - 15040
seats (not assembled) ft tall

48078

Evacuation payload:
No. Name Qty Dimensions Weight Total weight
(lbs) (lbs)
1 Human adults 168 1.5 ft wide x 4 ft tall 175 29400
(seated)
2 Standard seats with 168 1.5 ft wide x 1.5 ft long x 80 13440
restraints 4 ft tall (in pallets)
3 Pallet seat system 16 7 ft long x 6 ft wide x 2 ft 100 1600
(double decker) tall (not including seats)
44440

B. Cargo transport only

iv
For this mission, the plane shall carry cargo only. Hence, the plane will be packed full of the
brim with supplies. The saved weight is translated into more food, first aid kits, tents and
stretchers.
No. Name Qty Dimensions Weight Total weight
(lbs) (lbs)
1 Food/water bundle 20 4 ft long x 4 ft wide x 4 900 18000
(576 meals + water ft tall
each)
2 EEG Monitor 72 1 ft long x 0.75 ft wide x 80 5760
1.5 ft high
3 Industrial Generator 2 2.5 ft long x 1 ft wide x 1300 2600
1.5 ft high
4 Emergency Relief Tent 100 3 ft long x 1 ft wide x 1 86 8600
(for 5 persons each) ft high
5 First Aid Kits 384 1 ft wide x 1 ft long x 1 3 1152
(for 10 people each) ft tall
6 Emergency 224 1 ft long x 1 ft wide x 20 2240
Preparedness Kits 1.5 ft tall
7 Rescue Blankets 10 1 ft long x 1 ft wide x 1.5 150
(pack of 12) 0.5 ft tall
8 Pill Boxes 64 1 ft long x 1 ft wide x 1 43 2752
(contains 216 bottles) ft tall
9 Oxygen Mask and 200 0.5 ft long x 0.5 ft wide 5 1000
Tank x 1 ft tall
10 Fuel barrel 10 0.75 ft long x 0.75 ft 400 4000
wide x 1 ft tall
11 Stretchers 400 6 ft long x 2 ft wide x 1 5 2000
ft tall
48254

C. Airdropping supplies
In this mission, the plane will only carry supplies only, but with some added weight from the
parachutes. Hence, the cargo payload from Mission B is reduced by reducing one pallet of
food and replacing with parachutes.
No. Name Qty Dimensions Weight Total weight
(lbs) (lbs)
1 Food/water bundle 19 4 ft long x 4 ft wide x 4 900 17100
(576 meals + water ft tall
each)
2 EEG Monitor 72 1 ft long x 0.75 ft wide x 80 5760
1.5 ft high
3 Industrial Generator 2 2.5 ft long x 1 ft wide x 1300 2600
1.5 ft high
4 Emergency Relief Tent 100 3 ft long x 1 ft wide x 1 86 8600
(for 5 persons each) ft high
5 First Aid Kits 384 1 ft wide x 1 ft long x 1 3 1152
(for 10 people each) ft tall
6 Emergency 224 1 ft long x 1 ft wide x 20 2240
Preparedness Kits 1.5 ft tall
7 Rescue Blankets 10 1 ft long x 1 ft wide x 1.5 150
(pack of 12) 0.5 ft tall
8 Pill Boxes 64 1 ft long x 1 ft wide x 1 43 2752
(contains 216 bottles) ft tall

v
9 Oxygen Mask and 200 0.5 ft long x 0.5 ft wide 5 1000
Tank x 1 ft tall
10 Fuel barrel 10 0.75 ft long x 0.75 ft 400 4000
wide x 1 ft tall
11 Stretchers 400 6 ft long x 2 ft wide x 1 5 2000
ft tall
12 Parachutes 30 3 ft long x 3 ft wide x 1 25 750
ft tall
48104

vi
Interior layout design drawings
A. Hybrid cargo and personnel transport
Cargo configuration
Top
Tents

4 ft
6 ft
4 ft

7 ft 7 ft
4 ft 4 ft 4 ft 4 ft 4 ft 6 ft 6 ft 2.5 ft
1.5 ft

Food EEG Pills Medical Stretchers Generator


supplies + + Fuel Seats
kits

Front

Evacuation configuration
Foldout seats Top
1.5 ft

seating pattern repeated throughout

4.5 ft

7 ft Pallet seating
system

Front

vii
B. Cargo transport only
Top
Pills Tents

4 ft

4 ft

4 ft 4 ft 4 ft 4 ft 4 ft 2.5 ft 6 ft 6 ft 6 ft
1.5 ft

Food EEG Medical Generator Stretchers


supplies + + Fuel
kits

Front
C. Airdropping supplies
Top
Pills Tents

4 ft

4 ft

4 ft 4 ft 4 ft 4 ft 4 ft 4 ft 2.5 ft 6 ft 6 ft 6 ft
1.5 ft

Food Parachutes EEG Medical Generator Stretchers


(extra) supplies + + Fuel
kits
*Note: Each pallet is attached with a parachute

Front

viii
C. Arduino Code
// Initialise all variables. Set which Arduino pins should be the inputs or outputs of which
// variables. Define the float variables eeg and Volts and the integer variable
// suspicions.
int pushButton = 13;
int ledOutput = 12;
int servoOutput = 8;
int eegSensor = A0;
int push = 0;
float eeg = 0;
float Volts = 0;
int suspicions = 0;

// Set up which pins are the input pins and which pins are the output pins. Basically, the
// push button and the EEG sensor are the inputs, while the LED and servo are outputs.
void setup()
{
pinMode(pushButton, INPUT);
pinMode(eegSensor, INPUT);
pinMode(ledOutput, OUTPUT);
pinMode(servoOutput, OUTPUT);
Serial.begin(9600);
}

// This is the main loop that detects the input voltage and decides what to do next.
void loop()
{

// These lines ask the Arduino to read the raw voltage from the input pin and save it as the
// variable eeg.
push = digitalRead(pushButton);
eeg = analogRead(eegSensor);

// The following line converts the analog reading of A0 into milivolts (mV) and saves it as
// the variable Volts
Volts = eeg*5*1000/1023;

// The following line stores the number of suspicions in a variable calle suspicions.
Serial.println(suspicions);

// If the voltage reading is 3 times over the threshold, light the LED and run the servo.
// This person is infected!
if (push == HIGH && Volts >= 75 && suspicions >= 3) {
digitalWrite(ledOutput,HIGH);
digitalWrite(servoOutput,255);
}

// If the voltage reading is over the threshold, but not yet three times, record it and wait
// for one second. Might be a false positive. Then check again.
else if (push == HIGH && Volts >= 75 && suspicions < 3) {
suspicions++;

}
// If the voltage reading is not over the threshold, dont make the LED glow, and do
// nothing. Wait one second before checking again.
else {
digitalWrite(ledOutput,LOW);
delay(1000);

ix
D. FAT Testing Procedures

Test Title: Test #1 - Verify Minimum Evacuation Range


Scope: This test verifies that the Z-80 Lifesaver is able to evacuate an unspecified number
of passengers to a minimum range of 500 miles (800 km) to and fro by comparing to the
operational range of the aircraft in the Aircraft Simulator.

The following requirements are included in this procedure:


1. The Z-80 Lifesaver should have an operational range of at least 1600 km to achieve its
evacuation design goals.

Name of Tester: JOHN VOON Date of Test: 25 NOVEMBER 2017

Prerequisites:
The test should be carried out on a Windows 10 computer.
The test computer should have Google Chrome installed.
The test computer should have an open Internet connection.
The test computer should have the required Aircraft Simulator stored as a bookmark
in Google Chrome.

Test Procedure:
Step Instructions Expected Outcome Requirement Pass/Fail
1 Turn on the laptop and The Windows desktop is
wait for startup to shown with a large number
complete. of icons on the screen.
2 Locate the Google The Google Chrome
Chrome icon (red-yellow- browser opens, showing a
blue-green round icon). Google logo and an input
Double-click on it. box on a white background.
3 Look for the Aircraft A page titled Aircraft
Simulator on the Simulator opens, with a
Bookmarks bar near the large amount of drop-down
top of the screen. Click on menus and text boxes, as
it. well as a Aircraft
Performance section below
displaying a wide variety of
figures.
4 Click on the drop-down The text in the drop down
menu labelled Engine menu changes to CF6-
Type. Click on CF6-80C2 80C2 (jet). All the numbers
(jet). in the Aircraft
Performance section
changes as a result.
5. Click on the text box The text in the Number of
labelled Number of Engines box changes to
Engines. Type in 1 on 1. All the numbers in the
your keyboard. Aircraft Performance
section changes as a result.
6. Similar to Step 5, input the The text in the currently-
9 values shown below into selected text box changes
each corresponding text to your input. The Aircraft

x
box on the right side of the Performance section
screen: changes as a result.
Lift Coefficient: 1.59928
Drag Coefficient: 0.07689
Payload Weight (kN): 225
Fuel Weight (kN): 30
Chord Length (m): 2
Span (m): 45
Fuselage Cross-Sectional
Area (m2): 11.16
Fuselage Length (m):
38.57
Glider Starting Attitude
(km): 0

7. Look at the value labelled The Range (km) text field VERIFY Pass
Range in the Aircraft shows a figure with multiple YES/NO
Performance section. decimal places. Range > 1600
Ensure this value is larger km
than the stipulated value
of 1600 km.

Outcome of Test 1:
The Z-80 Lifesaver passed FAT Test #1 as the plane has a range of 2339.94 km, larger than
the required operational range of at least 1600 km.

xi
Test Title: Test #2a - Verify Minimum Evacuation Capacity
Scope: This test verifies that the Z-80 Lifesaver is able to evacuate at least 800 passengers
per day to a minimum range of 500 miles (800 km) to and fro by calculating the seat
capacity.

The following requirements are included in this procedure:


2. The Z-80 Lifesaver should have the ability to evacuate 800 passengers per day to achieve
its evacuation design goals.

Name of Tester: JOHN VOON Date of Test: 25 NOVEMBER 2017

Prerequisites:
The test should be carried out on a Windows 10 computer.
The test computer should have Microsoft Word installed.
The tester should prepare a pocket calculator, pen/pencil and a piece of paper.

Test Procedure:
Step Instructions Expected Outcome Requirement Pass/Fail
1 Turn on the laptop and The Windows desktop is
wait for startup to shown with a large number
complete. of icons on the screen.
2 Locate the Sparky Aid The Sparky Aid Designs
Designs folder on the folder opens in a new
desktop. Double click on window, showing a large
the icon. number of documents.
3 In the folder, locate the Microsoft Word opens
document named Aircraft showing a document titled
Purpose and Interior Project Memo: Aircraft
Design. Double click on Purpose and Interior
the icon. Design.
4 Scroll down to page 2. A table is shown titled
Locate the table titled Payload 1: Hybrid
Payload 1. passenger and cargo
transport. The table shows
all the items in the payload
including passengers.
5. Locate the text field The number of passenger
labelled Passenger seats for Payload 1 is
seats. Note down the written down.
number in the text field on
your piece of paper as
No. of seats.
6. Locate the text field The number of daily trips for
named Number of daily Payload 1 is written down.
trips. Note down the
number in the text field on
your piece of paper as
No. of trips.
7 Press the big red ON The pocket calculators
button on the pocket screen lights up and is
calculator. ready to use.

xii
8. Input the first number The results of the VERIFY Pass
noted down as No. of multiplication are shown on YES/NO
seats. Press the button. the screen. Capacity > 800
Input the second number
noted down as No. of
trips. Press the = button.
Ensure that the result
shown is greater than the
required capacity.

Outcome of Test 2a:


The Z-80 Lifesaver passed FAT Test #2a as the plane has a daily capacity of 840 people,
larger than the required capacity of at least 800 people.

xiii
Test Title: Test #3a - Verify Minimum Medicine Delivery Capacity
Scope: This test verifies that the Z-80 Lifesaver is able to deliver medicine to treat
potentially 12000 infected people by looking at the payload capacity per trip.

The following requirements are included in this procedure:


3. The Z-80 Lifesaver should have the ability to deliver 12000 bottles of medicine pills per
trip to achieve its resupply design goals.

Name of Tester: JOHN VOON Date of Test: 25 NOVEMBER 2017

Prerequisites:
The test should be carried out on a Windows 10 computer.
The test computer should have Microsoft Word installed.

Test Procedure:
Step Instructions Expected Outcome Requirement Pass/Fail
1 Turn on the laptop and The Windows desktop is
wait for startup to shown with a large number
complete. of icons on the screen.
2 Locate the Sparky Aid The Sparky Aid Designs
Designs folder on the folder opens in a new
desktop. Double click on window, showing a large
the icon. number of documents.
3 In the folder, locate the Microsoft Word opens
document named Aircraft showing a document titled
Purpose and Interior Project Memo: Aircraft
Design. Double click on Purpose and Interior
the icon. Design.
4 Scroll down to page 2. A table is shown titled
Locate the table titled Payload 1: Hybrid
Payload 1. passenger and cargo
transport. The table shows
all the items in the payload
including passengers.
5. Locate the text field The number of bottles of VERIFY Pass
labelled Bottles of medicine pills for Payload 1 YES/NO
medicine pills and note is shown. Number of
the number beside it. bottles > 12000
Ensure that the number
shown is greater than the
required capacity.

Outcome of Test 3a:


The Z-80 Lifesaver passed FAT Test #3a as the plane is able to carry 13854 bottles of
medicine pills per trip, larger than the requirement of 12000 bottles.

xiv
Test Title: Test #4 - Verify Maximum Cruise Speed
Scope: This test verifies that the Z-80 Lifesaver should have a cruise speed that is lower
than the given design limit.

The following requirements are included in this procedure:


4. The Z-80 Lifesaver should have a maximum cruise speed of 310 m/s.

Name of Tester: JOHN VOON Date of Test: 26 NOVEMBER 2017

Prerequisites:
The test should be carried out on a Windows 10 computer.
The test computer should have Google Chrome installed.
The test computer should have an open Internet connection.
The test computer should have the required Aircraft Simulator stored as a bookmark
in Google Chrome.

Test Procedure:
Step Instructions Expected Outcome Requirement Pass/Fail
1 Turn on the laptop and The Windows desktop is
wait for startup to shown with a large number
complete. of icons on the screen.
2 Locate the Google The Google Chrome
Chrome icon (red-yellow- browser opens, showing a
blue-green round icon). Google logo and an input
Double-click on it. box on a white background.
3 Look for the Aircraft A page titled Aircraft
Simulator on the Simulator opens, with a
Bookmarks bar near the large amount of drop-down
top of the screen. Click on menus and text boxes, as
it. well as a Aircraft
Performance section below
displaying a wide variety of
figures.
4 Click on the drop-down The text in the drop down
menu labelled Engine menu changes to CF6-
Type. Click on CF6-80C2 80C2 (jet). All the numbers
(jet). in the Aircraft
Performance section
changes as a result.
5. Click on the text box The text in the Number of
labelled Number of Engines box changes to
Engines. Type in 1 on 1. All the numbers in the
your keyboard. Aircraft Performance
section changes as a result.
6. Similar to Step 5, input the The text in the currently-
9 values shown below into selected text box changes
each corresponding text to your input. The Aircraft
box on the right side of the Performance section
screen: changes as a result.
Lift Coefficient: 1.59928
Drag Coefficient: 0.07689
Payload Weight (kN): 225

xv
Fuel Weight (kN): 30
Chord Length (m): 2
Span (m): 45
Fuselage Cross-Sectional
Area (m2): 11.16
Fuselage Length (m):
38.57
Glider Starting Attitude
(km): 0

7. Look at the value labelled The Cruise Speed (m/s) VERIFY Pass
Cruise Speed in the text field shows a figure with YES/NO
Aircraft Performance multiple decimal places. Cruise speed <
section. Ensure this value 310 m/s
is smaller than the
stipulated value of 310
m/s.

Outcome of Test 4:
The Z-80 Lifesaver passed FAT Test #4 as the plane has a cruise speed of 308.9 m/s, which
is under the prescribed limit of 310 m/s.

xvi
Test Title: Test #5 - Verify Minimum Climb Rate
Scope: This test verifies that the Z-80 Lifesaver should have a climb rate that is high
enough to avoid obstacles during take-off.

The following requirements are included in this procedure:


5. The Z-80 Lifesaver should have a minimum climb rate of 2% of the cruise speed, in order
to be able to take off quickly enough.

Name of Tester: JOHN VOON Date of Test: 26 NOVEMBER 2017

Prerequisites:
The test should be carried out on a Windows 10 computer.
The test computer should have Google Chrome installed.
The test computer should have an open Internet connection.
The test computer should have the required Aircraft Simulator stored as a bookmark
in Google Chrome.
The tester should prepare a pocket calculator, pen/pencil and a piece of paper.

Test Procedure:
Step Instructions Expected Outcome Requirement Pass/Fail
1 Turn on the laptop and The Windows desktop is
wait for startup to shown with a large number
complete. of icons on the screen.
2 Locate the Google The Google Chrome
Chrome icon (red-yellow- browser opens, showing a
blue-green round icon). Google logo and an input
Double-click on it. box on a white background.
3 Look for the Aircraft A page titled Aircraft
Simulator on the Simulator opens, with a
Bookmarks bar near the large amount of drop-down
top of the screen. Click on menus and text boxes, as
it. well as a Aircraft
Performance section below
displaying a wide variety of
figures.
4 Click on the drop-down The text in the drop down
menu labelled Engine menu changes to CF6-
Type. Click on CF6-80C2 80C2 (jet). All the numbers
(jet). in the Aircraft
Performance section
changes as a result.
5. Click on the text box The text in the Number of
labelled Number of Engines box changes to
Engines. Type in 1 on 1. All the numbers in the
your keyboard. Aircraft Performance
section changes as a result.
6. Similar to Step 5, input the The text in the currently-
9 values shown below into selected text box changes
each corresponding text to your input. The Aircraft
box on the right side of the Performance section
screen: changes as a result.

xvii
Lift Coefficient: 1.59928
Drag Coefficient: 0.07689
Payload Weight (kN): 225
Fuel Weight (kN): 30
Chord Length (m): 2
Span (m): 45
Fuselage Cross-Sectional
Area (m2): 11.16
Fuselage Length (m):
38.57
Glider Starting Attitude
(km): 0

7. Locate and note down the Both the Cruise Speed


two values labelled (m/s) and Rate of Climb
Cruise Speed (m/s) and (m/s) text fields show
Rate of Climb (m/s) in figures with multiple decimal
the Aircraft Performance places. Both values are
section. written down on the piece of
paper.
8. Press the big red ON The pocket calculators
button on the pocket screen lights up and is
calculator. ready to use.
9. Input the first number The results of the decimal VERIFY Pass
noted down as Rate of are shown on the screen as YES/NO
Climb. Press the a decimal number. Answer > 0.02
button. Input the second
number noted down as
Cruise Speed. Press the
= button. Ensure that the
result shown is greater
than the required ratio.

Outcome of Test 5:
The Z-80 Lifesaver passed FAT Test #5 as the plane has a climb rate of 118.63 m/s, which
is 38.4% (0.384) of the cruise speed of 308.9 m/s, greater than the requirement of 2% (0.02).

xviii

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi