TOTOGASHVILI, N. Remotorizace lehkého sportovního letounu [online]. Brno: Vysoké učení technické v Brně. Fakulta strojního inženýrství. 2020.

Posudek vedoucího

Löffelmann, František

Student consulted intensively close to submission date, which was necessary to approach the thesis to technical documentation form and remove elementary mistakes, from which some remained such as confusing units in torque load in the chapter 7. Chapter 2 is based on the literature and gives description of the aircraft, current and new engine. New engine is briefly selected from five candidates. Chapter 3 describes mass and balance analysis but except one, resp. two cases, it contains only cases with fuel for one hour of flight. Chapter 4 calculates performances and flight envelopes. More characteristics were calculated then necessary, but comparison with performance of the aircraft with original engine might show that performance values with new engine can be overestimated. Chapter 5 shows design of the engine mount without closer description of the attachment between engine bulkhead and engine mount. Engine mount test plan from the chapter 7 would be cleaner if loads were arranged in the table for limit loads and ultimate loads. Overall clarity of the thesis is low, which could have been improved by deeper explanation of the work logic in all chapters, however, points of the assignment are fulfilled on sufficient level, so I recommend the thesis to the defense.

Posudek oponenta

Juračka, Jaroslav

The diploma thesis has got of 45 pages, while the actual text of the thesis represents 40 pages. Globally, it can be stated that the level of work is very low and does not reach the standard of this kind of work. The work meets the requirements of the assignment only very limited. The procedure and adequacy of the methods are very limited due to disordered and insufficient commenting. The originality of one's own approach is limited too. The interpretation of the achieved results, formal requirements and adjustment, incl. typos is unaccepted. The following examples can be pointed out in detail: - errors in terminology (pg. 7: z-normal axis,…), - absence of a Figure with the definition of the origin of the coordinate system, - work with the analytical polar and the corresponding performance parameters is not suitable for a known airplane, the resulting aerodynamic polar of the airplane is not specified, - pg.18 - Table 8 is the same as Table 6, - pg. 17 - consumption of 16.2 kg/hour of flight is not assigned to the speed and altitude of the flight, -pg. 22.- the intersection of the available and required thrust does not give the parameters of celling, - equations are not numbered, on pg. 23 the part of the equation is missing, an overview of the physical quantities and units is missing, -pg. 28 - Table 18 does not give an idea of the corresponding flight speed and gust speed - there is absence of drawing documentation or CAD model of the designed engine mount, - the strength analysis of the engine mount is not documented (cannot be fully excluded from the design), - the engine mount load chapter is untypically after its design, - student permanently used kgs as force! Similarly, in kg there is the torque (pg. 37), - for the gust load cases the load factor n = 4 is used uncorrectly.

eVSKP id 129756