The slender-pod fuselage concept balanced a compact aerodynamic profile with space for electronics and flexibility in component placement. A rounded half-ellipse nose was considered for aerodynamic shape, manufacturing practicality and motor integration.

I designed the avionics shelf in SolidWorks with notch-slot registration and a 1 mm print allowance. The registration geometry establishes the component location while leaving access for wiring, assembly and inspection. The allowance is a design input rather than a measured printer capability.

The Spring 2026 team report documents internal fuselage revisions around the flight controller, battery and wiring, plus a removable nose for direct avionics access. Those revisions made assembly and servicing part of the CAD layout decisions.

The material comparison used SolidWorks volumes with candidate filament densities. The governing relation was mass = material density × modeled material volume. Each configuration uses the same modeled airframe scope, with foaming changing the effective material density.

The tradeoff was lower effective density versus reduced strength. The team report describes carbon spars and thicker walls in critical regions to address that tradeoff, with spars providing the primary load path. These are design choices; the comparison does not establish a verified structural strength result.

The strong-foaming estimate of 2.27 lb is approximately 52% below the 4.68 lb standard-PLA estimate: (4.68 − 2.27) / 4.68 × 100 ≈ 51.5%. The lb units cancel in the percentage calculation. These values compare material configurations; they are not measured completed-aircraft masses or a verified hybrid-airframe mass.

The team report records slicer problems including overlapping internal surfaces, unintended solid infill and unsupported ribs. The wing geometry was simplified, with carbon spars serving as the primary load path and 15% gyroid infill selected for the wing structures.

I fabricated temperature-dependent FDM (fused deposition modeling) test prints that informed the team’s selection of a 240°C nozzle temperature for LW-PLA. The setting was based on print deformation and foaming behavior. It is a project-specific manufacturing decision, rather than a universal optimum or measured load capacity.

The airframe was printed in sections because of printer-size and part-complexity constraints, then assembled progressively. I managed the airframe bill of materials and supplier orders, coordinating parts availability with the build.

The avionics team revised the wiring architecture by removing an unnecessary power distribution board, a separate battery eliminator circuit and an I2C splitter. Team testing checked telemetry, orientation, servo sweep and throttle control ahead of integration. These are team subsystem results.

The report documents a manufactured and assembled airframe. Assembly and bench subsystem checks do not establish completed autonomous surveying, measured flight performance or vibration qualification. The mass comparison remains analytical.

The listed body and board-outline dimensions are separate from my caliper measurements. The complete installed envelopes also include tabs, leads, component heights and connector protrusions. My model updates use the received hardware; numerical measurement records have not yet been added to this page.

Cell retention, PCB location and the port opening are connected design decisions: each affects the usable enclosure space, assembly sequence and access to the components. The current model documents those interfaces rather than treating the enclosure as an exterior shell alone.

I created dimensioned SolidWorks drawings specifying wall thickness, mounting locations, port clearance and mating dimensions. I also documented the assembly sequence so the design communicates how the cell, board and enclosure parts fit together.

The drawings support prototype fabrication and interface discussion. Physical enclosure printing and assembled fit testing are still separate evidence milestones.

An earlier component-layout calculation omitted PCB length. I identified the missing dimension and recalculated the packaging-volume lower bound from 85.5 to 116.2 cm³.

This was a correction to an earlier model, not a reduction in enclosure size or a measured volume for the current design. The lower bound needs to be recalculated using the purchased nickel-tab cell and IP5356 board before it becomes a current design constraint.

In an earlier enclosure study, I analyzed five seam-gap contributors using worst-case and root-sum-square tolerance stacks. The draft 0.30 mm gap limit was missed: the earlier worst-case result was 0.60 mm and the RSS result was approximately 0.345 mm.

Worst-case stacking adds the signed extreme contributions. RSS combines contributions statistically and depends on suitable assumptions about independence and centering. The mismatch identified a need to revise the tolerance allocation or verify the proposed interface through printed coupons.

The five contributors are analytical inputs, not five verified physical measurements. That study predates the current purchased cell and PCB. It is evidence of an analytical design review, not proof that the current enclosure meets the seam-gap requirement.

The project began with requirements, energy and thermal calculations, benchmarking, component architecture comparisons and a provisional BOM. It has now progressed into component metrology, enclosure CAD and dimensioned prototype documentation.

Earlier packaging estimates were tied to earlier component selections. The current enclosure volume and clearances need to be documented from the revised CAD rather than inferred from the previous 116.2 cm³ lower bound or 120 cm³ proposal.

The next evidence is printed interface coupons and an assembled enclosure fit check. Electrical output ratings in the PCB listing are seller specifications; measured power, energy and thermal performance remain future validation work.

The general servo replacements I performed are separate from my study of a proposed change from a 3.6 g servo to a 9 g actuator. I evaluated the larger option across enclosure clearance, torque, power and cost.

The proposed larger actuator required 13.5 mm of additional enclosure clearance. This identified a packaging penalty to weigh against the potential actuator benefits; it was not an implemented 9 g upgrade.

The extra actuator size created a mechanical integration penalty. An option with a higher rating would still have to fit the enclosure, preserve camera travel and accommodate wiring without creating new assembly problems.

The current comparison was a screening calculation using ratings. Torque and supply behavior were hypotheses to investigate, rather than proven root causes.

I revised internal cable routing and connector strategy for assembly repeatability and serviceability. Cable layout was part of the mechanical study because it interacts with moving components, installation access and future servicing.

The documented contribution is the routing and connector revision. No measured reduction in friction, assembly time or failure rate is assigned to that work.

My note distinguishing possible supply and torque issues prompted the project lead to investigate the controls. The team found that the pan loop lacked software travel limits and was commanding the servos beyond their mechanical stop.

The controls team added travel limits, and the larger-servo replacement was no longer needed. The project lead later reported reliable operation of the units they were running; this was qualitative follow-up rather than a quantified reliability study I performed.

I will help with enclosure and mounting work again as the team progresses beyond its current software priorities. Proposed enclosure revisions and upcoming mounting work remain pending.

The next design evidence will be the specific feature changed, its assembly or clearance rationale, and an actual fit or access check. The historical travel-limit correction does not mean all current software work is complete.

My contribution was the analysis, mechanical tradeoffs and communication that changed the next investigation. The controls team owned the final diagnosis and software implementation.

The useful outcome was avoiding an unnecessary hardware change once new evidence identified the governing issue. The study showed why replacement decisions need to account for mechanical packaging, electrical compatibility and control behavior together.