The table above demonstrate five AEV designs that were evaluated using concept screening and scoring.
Mike’s design made use of a system of gears to convert the high rev/ low torque power from the motor into a higher torque drive-wheel instead of using the propellers which are an inefficient form of propulsion for the AEV. This design’s major weakness was that it would require a greater amount of time for maintenance and construction.
Roo’s design used a lightweight aerodynamic shell to improve stability of the AEV, its major weakness was that it would also require more time for construction and maintenance because you’d have to remove the shell to modify and change internal components on the AEV.
Tanner’s AEV design’s major aspects involved the rotation of the motors using the servo-motor in order to achieve optimal thrust and efficiency from the propellers. However, the team decided in the concept screening that this designs major weakness is that it was both unsafe and inefficient due to how heavy it would be.
Orfilia’s design focused on a compact and lightweight frame to improve efficiency of the AEV. This design made only a small improvement upon the sample AEV design, but in comparison to the sample AEV had no weaknesses.
The team decided using the concept screening and scoring matrix that it would proceed into the guided research and development section of the project using Mike and Roo’s AEV designs due to their major improvements in stability, efficiency, and reliability.