Assignment Briefing Sheet (2021/22 Academic Year)
Section A: Assignment title, important dates and weighting
Assignment title:
Module title:
Group or individual:
| 6ENT1149, 6ENT1150 |
| Pilot Studies and Flight Planning Pilot Studies and Flight Analysis |
| Individual |
| Flight Test Investigation |
Module code:
Module leader:
Moderator’s initials:
Submission deadline:
Target date for return of marked assignment:
| 25 |
| Monday 11 April2022 |
| Monday 14 March 202209:00 |
You are expected to spend about hours to complete this assignment to a satisfactory standard.
| 25% |
This assignment is worth of the overall assessment for this module.
Section B: Student(s) to complete
| Student ID number | Year Code |
| Notes for students • For undergraduate modules, a score above 40% represent a pass performance at honours level. • For postgraduate modules, a score of 50% or above represents a pass mark. • Late submission of any item of coursework for each day or part thereof (or for hard copy submission only, working day or part thereof) for up to five days after the published deadline, coursework relating to modules at Levels 0, 4, 5, 6 submitted late (including deferred coursework, but with the exception of referred coursework), will have the numeric grade reduced by 10 grade points until or unless the numeric grade reaches or is 40. Where the numeric grade awarded for the assessment is less than 40, no lateness penalty will be applied. • Late submission of referred coursework will automatically be awarded a grade of zero (0). • Coursework (including deferred coursework) submitted later than five days (five working days in the case of hard copy submission) after the published deadline will be awarded a grade of zero (0). • Regulations governing assessment offences including Plagiarism and Collusion are available from https://www.herts.ac.uk/about-us/governance/university-policies-and-regulations-uprs/uprs (please refer to UPR AS14) • Guidance on avoiding plagiarism can be found here: https://herts.instructure.com/courses/61421/pages/referencing-avoiding- plagiarism?module_item_id=779436 • Modules may have several components of assessment and may require a pass in all elements. For further details, please consult the relevant Module Handbook (available on StudyNet/Canvas, under Module Information) or ask the Module Leader. |
Page 1 of 3
School of Physics, Engineering and Computer Science
Assignment Briefing Sheet (2021/22 Academic Year)
| This Assignment assesses the following module Intended Learning Outcomes (from Definitive Module Document): Demonstrate understanding of the various modes of motion, principles of flight, performance characteristics and handling qualities from a pilots perspectiveBe able to measure and evaluate critically the performance characteristics of an aircraft from flight data |
| Assignment Brief: Using flight-simulation software (X-plane, Merlin, Desktop controls, Microsoft FS) undertake a flight test exercise of a Cessna 172. Submit a formal lab report investigating the following: Flight-test analysis of the following manoeuvres, critically analysing what is happening to the aircraft. Flying at best-glide speed, no flaps deployed and power at idle, representing a practice forced landingFull-power climb at 70 knots and one stage of flap, representing climb-outSpiral dive (NOT a spin)Stall at 1500rpm engine speed and no flaps deployed You must provide evidence of your own recorded data. Your personal accuracy of flight is not an assessment factor; however, practicing to improve your skill will undoubtedly provide more accurate and relevant data, and where your flight is not a typical one you should repeat it until it is. The minimum data you will need to record are: times, speeds, distances, altitude, thrust, deflections of all control surfaces. The report should include background theory which discusses the various environmental and physical factors that affect aircraft performance. Refer to section 4 of the 172 POH for speeds and section 5 for performance tables (or equivalent if using another aircraft). When producing graphs, be sure to consider all relevant parameters, and choose the most significant combinations to compare. For instance, plotting roll angle during a stall is relevant because it identifies whether a wing drops; plotting lift versus angle of attack isn’t very useful because it will simply reproduce the lift curve for the aircraft’s wing section. Choose very carefully what parameters to plot against each other – in many cases, plotting a parameter against time will be best, but not always. Where you plot multiple graphs (which will be the case for most conditions), show the graphs at a reasonable size, consider carefully what scaling and range to use (don’t plot the entire flight or the relevant part will be almost invisible), and use the same time range for all graphs (where relevant) so that multiple parameters can be compared easily. |
| Submission Requirements: The report should be submitted as a PDF document via StudyNet. This will be marked anonymously so do not put your name on your work, SRN only. The report must not exceed 12 pages in total, including cover page, contents and appendices / attachments. |
Page 2 of 3
School of Physics, Engineering and Computer Science
| Marks awarded for: 10% for introduction10% for choice of the performance factors, with suitable explanations30% for presentation, graphical display, relevance and clarity of flight data40% for critical analysis of flight data10% for conclusion Please see the attached marking criteria grid for more details. |
| Type of Feedback to be given for this assignment: Individual feedback and comments will be provided via a returned copy of the report, with overall marks displayed on StudyNet. |
Page 3 of 3
| Criteria | Ratings | ||||||||||
| Out- standing | Excellent | Very good | Good | Satisfactory | Marginal pass | Marginal fail | Clear fail | Little or nothing of merit | Points | ||
| 100% | 80-99% | 70-79% | 60-69% | 50-59% | 40-49% | 30-39% | 20-29% | 1-19% | 0% | ||
| Introduction | Clear and complete introduction with no extraneous or irrelevant material | Comprehensive coverage of the introduction, all relevant factors stated clearly and concisely. | Good coverage of the introduction, clear explanation of the relevant factors and most relevant material included | Satisfactory context provided showing some evidence of relevant reading. Main factors given but not clearly expressed. Some irrelevant content | Some context provided showing some evidence of relevant reading. Some or most of the main factors given but not clearly expressed. Significant irrelevant or incorrect content | Limited evidence of effort or thought. A basic introduction. Some evidence that the author has read relevant literature in order to establish a context however little attempt to ensure it is relevant | Very limited evidence of effort or thought. A basic introduction. Little or no evidence that the author has read relevant literature in order to establish a context and little attempt to relate it to the assignment | Little or no evidence of effort or thought. A very simple introduction produced with minimal effort | |||
| 10 pts | 8 pts | 7 pts | 6 pts | 5 pts | 4 pts | 3 pts | 2 pts | 1 pt | 0 pts | ||
| Choice of performance factors, with suitable explanations | Careful and comprehensive selection of all relevant factors, with full and accurate explanations, related to the flight conditions considered | Very good choice of factors, together with accurate explanations of their relevance to the assignment | Good choice and a good number of factors chosen and clear explanations of their applicability | Satisfactory choice of factors, with good explanations of their applicability, but could have chosen more factors or more appropriate ones | A few relevant factors chosen and fair explanations, but too few selected, or could have made a more- suitable selection | Too few or inappropriate factors selected, with inaccurate or vague explanations | Very few factors selected, and those that were are a poor choice. Little or no explanation, or explanations are not correct | Little or nothing of merit offered | |||
| 10 pts | 8 pts | 7 pts | 6 pts | 5 pts | 4 pts | 3 pts | 2 pts | 1 pt | 0 pts |
| Criteria | Ratings | ||||||||||
| Out- standing | Excellent | Very good | Good | Satisfactory | Marginal pass | Marginal fail | Clear fail | Little or nothing of merit | Points | ||
| 100% | 80-99% | 70-79% | 60-69% | 50-59% | 40-49% | 30-39% | 20-29% | 1-19% | 0% | ||
| Presentation, graphical display and clarity of flight data | Clear, well-sized and informative graphs with appropriate grouping of parameters | Very good, comprehensive choice of graphs, properly scaled and very good grouping of relevant parameters | Good selection of good quality, relevant graphs. Good matching of parameters on each graph, with appropriate scales and limits | Satisfactory selection of relevant, high- quality graphs with reasonable choice of scales and grouping of parameters. Adjacent graphs properly aligned to allow cross- comparison | Fair choice of scales and graph size but could be improved. Scale intervals could have been chosen to be clearer. Insufficient parameters shown, and/or grouping of parameters could have been better | Poor selection of scales, graph size could be improved, grouping of parameters onto each graph inappropriate. Too few graphs or too few parameters selected | Too few graphs or parameters, graphs not clear, poor choice of graph scales make them difficult to interpret, graphs too small. Inappropriate choice of parameter combinations | Graphs poor quality or irrelevant | |||
| 30 pts | 25 pts | 23 pts | 20 pts | 17 pts | 14 pts | 10 pts | 8 pts | 3 pts | 0 pts |
| Criteria | Ratings | ||||||||||
| Out- standing | Excellent | Very good | Good | Satisfactory | Marginal pass | Marginal fail | Clear fail | Little or nothing of merit | Points | ||
| 100% | 80-99% | 70-79% | 60-69% | 50-59% | 40-49% | 30-39% | 20-29% | 1-19% | 0% | ||
| Critical analysis of flight data | An excellent and thoughtful comparison of all results, with clear and detailed explanation of discrepancies, identification of sources of error in each method | Very good comparison of the results obtained, giving clear and precise reasons for the differences, clear identification of sources of error for each method. Explanations given are factually accurate and credible | Good discussion, drawing clear comparisons between the methods used. Good and credible reasons offered to explain discrepancies, with a full and concise narrative | Satisfactory explanation of the results obtained and a good comparison of the results and the reasons behind both the similarities and the differences | Barely acceptable comparison of the results obtained by each method, but some elements of describing the graphs rather than the reasons for what they show. Little or no discussion of sources of error, or the sources stated may not be credible or significant | Lacks detail in the comparison of results, explanation limited to describing what can be seen already rather than the reasons behind it. Limited or questionable discussion of sources of error | Little attempt at a meaningful discussion of the results | Discussion limited to a description of the shape of the graphs rather than any thought given to the reasons behind it | |||
| 40 pts | 34 pts | 30 pts | 26 pts | 22 pts | 18 pts | 14 pts | 10 pts | 4 pts | 0 pts |
| Criteria | Ratings | ||||||||||
| Out- standing | Excellent | Very good | Good | Satisfactory | Marginal pass | Marginal fail | Clear fail | Little or nothing of merit | Points | ||
| 100% | 80-99% | 70-79% | 60-69% | 50-59% | 40-49% | 30-39% | 20-29% | 1-19% | 0% | ||
| Conclusion | Excellent drawing together of the key points found, clear conclusions drawn from the analysis and discussion of results. Accurate and meaningful discussion of what has been achieved, with no unsupported statements. Concise summary and closure of report | Very good drawing together of the key points found, clear conclusions drawn from the analysis and discussion of results, with no unsupported statements. Concise summary and closure of report | Key conclusions drawn from the analysis and discussion, no unsupported conclusions drawn. Concise and accurate summary | Conclusions drawn only from the results, with no additional or unsupported conclusions. Good discussion and summarises the previous sections. Little or no irrelevant material | Extent of conclusions is adequate but limited, leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions from the rest of the report. Some statements may not be supported by the evidence in the report | Limited discussion, with perhaps only a line or two of content. Some statements may not be supported by evidence or not be related to the report content | Very limited discussion, with little or no reference to the results obtained | Little or no relevant discussion | |||
| 10 pts | 8 pts | 7 pts | 6 pts | 5 pts | 4 pts | 3 pts | 2 pts | 1 pt | 0 pts |
Get expert help for Pilot Studies and Flight Analysis and many more. 24X7 help, plag-free solution. Order online now!
