Design 4 and 5 scored the highest in this decision matrix, and were confirmed as the best options in the concept scoring matrix, where they scored the highest using a more complex grading scale to determine which designs would proceed to the development stage. One of the most significant reason these two designs have been chosen, is because they have a higher distribution of points instead of having one good characteristic, and scoring poorly in others.
The main features of Design 1 are its stability and aerodynamics. It features a tapered front that will make it effective at redirecting air flow. This comes at a higher cost with the use of outside materials. The design is not entirely realistic for a model AEV, however, it might be better applied in an industrial setting where factors such as air resistance and and air flow are much more impactful. Design 2 has many different features. Some of the pros include being minimalistic, and having a low cost of production. One potential drawback to the design is its stability. The AEV relies on the distribution of its parts to allow its lopsided design to remain parallel to the ground. When a load is attached to the AEV this may cause an imbalance in the stability causing the AEV to fail. Design 3 is intended to have a wider base to ensure better stability. The angled wings on the side provide better aerodynamics. The hope is that the extra width and weight will keep the AEV stable when picking up the cargo. Design 4 is a more aerodynamic and lightweight design. It is more elongated than it is wide and does not weigh that much so it can easily be accelerated. Some of the cons that come with this are that it is more unstable and will probably need the four propellers to lift the load. Design 5, the team concept sketch, boasts many similar traits to Designs 1-4. One of the main focuses was keeping the design as cost effective as possible. Group F decided to take the minimalist nature of Design 2, and change its orientation, while cutting out a motor to reduce the power output, and drop costs. One potential drawback to this design is loss of control that comes from having two motors.
Concept Screening:
| Success Criteria | Reference | Design 1 | Design 2 | Design 3 | Design 4 | Design 5 |
| Stability | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
Minimal Blockage
|
0 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 1 |
| Maintenance | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Durability | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 1 |
| Saftey | 0 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0 |
| Sum +’s | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Sum 0’s | 5 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| Sum -‘s | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | -1 | 0 |
| Net Score | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 2 | 3 |
| Continue? | Combine | Discontinued | Discontinued | Discontinued | Continued | Continued |
Concept Scoring:
| Design 1 (Adam) | Design 2 (Aaron) | Design 3 (Jake) | Design 4 (Chaitanya) | Design 5 (Team Concept) | |||||||
| Success Criteria | Weight | Rating | Score | Rating | Score | Rating | Score | Rating | Score | Rating | Score |
| Stability | 20% | 2 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.6 | 4 | 0.8 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.6 |
| Minimal Blockage | 15% | 1 | 0.15 | 2 | 0.3 | 2 | 0.3 | 3 | 0.45 | 4 | 0.6 |
| Maintenance | 15% | 3 | 0.45 | 3 | 0.45 | 3 | 0.45 | 4 | 0.6 | 4 | 0.6 |
| Durability | 25% | 3 | 0.75 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0.75 | 2 | 0.5 | 4 | 1 |
| Saftey | 25% | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.5 | 3 | 0.75 | 3 | 0.75 |
| Total Score | 2.75 | 2.85 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 3.55 | ||||||
| Continue? | Discontinue | Discontinue | Discontinue | Continue | Continue | ||||||