| Concept Screening Matrix | ||||||
| Success Criteria | Reference | Steve | Alex S. | Alex U. | Group Design 1 | Group Design 2 |
| Safety | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Stability | 0 | 0 | – | + | – | + |
| Maintenance | 0 | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Efficiency | 0 | – | 0 | 0 | – | 0 |
| Aeryodynamics | 0 | – | + | – | + | 0 |
| Sum +’s | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Sum 0’s | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Sum -‘s | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Net Score | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 1 |
| Continue | Combine | NO | YES | YES | NO | YES |
| Concept Scoring Matrix | |||||||||||||
| Reference | Steve | Alex S. | Alex U. | Group Design 1 | Group Design 2 | ||||||||
| Success Criteria | Weight | Rating | Score | Rating | Score | Rating | Score | Rating | Score | Rating | Score | Rating | Score |
| Safety | 20% | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.6 |
| Stabilty | 25% | 2 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.25 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0.25 | 5 | 1.25 |
| Maintenance | 10% | 3 | 0.3 | 4 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.3 | 3 | 0.3 | 3 | 0.3 | 3 | 0.6 |
| Efficiency | 25% | 3 | 0.75 | 2 | 0.5 | 3 | 0.75 | 3 | 0.75 | 2 | 0.5 | 3 | 0.75 |
| Aerodynamics | 20% | 4 | 0.8 | 3 | 0.6 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 0.6 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 0.8 |
| Total Score | 2.95 | 2.6 | 2.9 | 3.25 | 2.65 | 4 | |||||||
| Continue? | NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | YES | |||||||
Group Design 2:
Before this exercise, modifications were made to the group design that improved the functionality significantly.
Pros: This design was more stable than both the first group design and the sample design due to the loss in weight.
Cons: No real cons to this design. It matched with the sample AEV’s criteria quite well. Improvements will need to be made to make it better than average.
Moving Forward: The two designs going forward will be Alex Uhrich’s design and Group Design 2.