Specifications

CT Corsair Final Report May 2, 2014

9.3.4 Motor Mount Analysis Conclusions

From the obtained results, assuming manufacturing errors, steel 8620 was used for the motor

mounts. This material surely accommodates for any errors in manufacturing, ensuring the motor

mounts are be safe. Using Aluminum 6061-T6 would be satisfactory, but is ultimately too much

of a risk to use this material as the team is custom machining the parts.

10 Conclusion

10.1 Summary of Project Accomplishments

Connecticut Corsair’s overall goal for the University of Connecticut joint discipline senior

design team was to restore a damaged Gyro IPT flight simulator with obsolete components to

working condition. The 2013-2014 senior design team picked up where the last team had stopped

and formed the overarching goal of restoring motion to the simulator in three axes, pitch, roll,

and heave. The overarching goal was broken down into mechanical and electrical engineering

distinct deliverables.

The first mechanical deliverable was to establish the torque requirement for the simulator in

order to facilitate the selection of a new gearbox and motor combination. The second mechanical

deliverable was to redesign the lower scissor arm, which eliminated interference with the

simulator as well as the existing over engineered design. The third mechanical deliverable was to

create motor mount attachments in order to secure the newly selected gearboxes to the simulator

base. The final mechanical deliverable was a conversion of the entire base into a working

SolidWorks assembly.

The first deliverable was broken down into several smaller goals. The first goal was to determine

the torque, angular velocity, and angular acceleration requirements of the new motor. To

determine each of these requirements a free body diagram was drawn of the entire simulator

base. The free body diagram indicated that there were two distinct motion profiles of the

simulator; a vertical lift and a pitch/roll motion profile. Each of the distinct motion profiles with

their corresponding free body diagrams can be seen in Figure 15 and Figure 19. The distinction

between the motion profiles can be seen in the respective equation of motion, Equation 7 for the

vertical lift motion profile and Equation 10 for the pitch/roll motion profile. Equation 7 defines

torque on the cam with only one term because during vertical lift, all cams must rotate

symmetrically and there is only one force from the pushrod acting on the cam. For the pitch/roll

motion profile, however, there are two terms within the equation of motion which are defined by

the force from the pushrod acting on the cam and the restoring force of the spring acting on the

platform. In the pitch/roll profile the simulator platform rotates about the universal joint and

compresses and extends the spring surrounding the universal joint. This spring acts as a restoring

force, constantly trying to return the platform to level. After defining the motion profiles with the

equations of motion, the spring constant as well as the motion relationships of the simulator had

to be defined.

Each of the equations of motion contained multiple dependent angle relationships which can be

seen in Figure 15 and Figure 19. Each of the dependent angle relationships could not be defined