About Rip Rippey
TerraBreak.org: Firstly, thank you very much for taking some time to give us your thoughts on DBF. Before we get to the meat and bones of the interview, could you tell everyone a little bit about yourself?
Rip: I grew up in a little town in Texas just south of Dallas. In high school I decided that I wanted to do something with Aerospace Engineering....ya know, learn a bit more about the R/C airplanes I was flying. So I went to Texas A&M University. I did a few internships with Raytheon and began to think the whole engineering thing was lame. It wasn't until I worked at the Naval Research Lab that I realized that I could combine my hobby experiences with work.
I accepted an offer with AeroVironment in 2001 and moved to Southern California. I ended up quitting so I could go to school to become a Geologist.
What was I thinkin'!?!?!?
Now I'm back in Southern California doing mechanical design for a company that makes guitars and amplifiers and stuff like that (check out www.line6.com). It's fun, but I'm sure I'll end up in the UAV industry again some time.
The interview
When did you first get involved in model aircraft?
I've loved flying things since I can remember, but I didn't build my first R/C airplane until I was 13. It was the Carl Goldberg Electra. I still have it.
How did you first get involved with DBF?
Since I was one of the VERY few students in Aerospace Engineering at Texas A&M to have ever flown an R/C airplane, one of my professors came to me asking if I'd ever heard anything about this "new" design/build/fly competition. That was Fall of 1996. I checked it out, formed a team, and took off from there.
How has your participation in DBF changed over the years?
I started off as a student at Texas A&M University competing the first three years. After that, I attended the events to help out with technical inspections and to be a "turn judge" or whatever else they needed. When I went back to school in Spring, 2003, I piloted for University of Texas since they had already built an airplane but had no pilot. This year I was the "rent-a-pilot".
How important do you feel DBF (or a similar hands-on, start from scratch and work to completion project) is for an Engineering student?
DBF-type projects are VERY important. Any student can design something on paper. Have that student build it and make it work is totally different. After the first project, one realizes all sorts of things to think about early in the design process the next time around. Employers absolutely love this kind of thing just because they know that the student has that much less to learn on the job.
Since the inception of DBF, it has grown quite a bit. What are some of the more interesting changes you've noticed?
Water. What a gnarly payload. It takes up a lot of room since it isn't as dense as the steel payloads used in the first two competitions, and sloshing can cause some problems!
I'm glad to see the Rated Aircraft Cost now. It sure does throw some factors into determining the final design, but it truly is a real-world consideration. Production UAVs are becoming a reality, and it's great that DBF is acknowledging this.
What things have stayed the same, and are you surprised by any of these?
Ni-Cd batteries. I remember asking one of the contest coordinators way back about this, and it sounded like it was a good way to keep a level playing field. So it's not too much of a surprise that this is staying a constant.
However, for industry small-scale UAV applications, it seems like lithium polymer secondary cells are becoming the standard.
Since brushless motors are more widely used in the UAV industry, should the competition switch to these motors in order to better simulate a "mass-produced UAV"?
Going back to my comments about Ni-Cds, I think having the motor type and brand restricted helps keep the focus of the competition on the design of the aircraft. Also, this restriction probably helps lower the costs for the students, so that's good.
However, it might be cool to have that motor type and brand restriction apply to a certain type of brushless motor to go more toward what is being seen in mass-produced UAVs.
Do you see room for stability augmentation systems on DBF aircraft, or do you feel this would lean too much towards autonomous designs?
I think the biggest thing with DBF is getting a practical UAV designed and built in a short amount of time. In the UAV industry, such an aircraft would eventually have avionics to make it more user-friendly or autonomous. I don't think whether or not a DBF aircraft has a stability augmentation system should really matter in this "prototype" phase.
If the use of SAS was deemed okay by the rules (I currently don't see anything that specifically outlaws it) do you feel that would give an unfair advantage to teams who afford the time and money to build a small, lightweight system to help control the aircraft?
I can't really see a SAS giving unfair advantage to a team using it. If they can deal with the extra weight, go for it!
What eye-openers at competition can you recall? Really cool designs, stuff you never thought would work but did, fantastic construction, etc.
The Italians have arrived with very interesting aircraft the last few years. Their freewing-style "Michelangelo" this year has got to be the most unique one I've seen yet.
How many aircraft have you flown at competition, and which was the most difficult? Which was the easiest?
I've flown three different aircraft for Texas A&M University (1997 - 1999), one for University of Texas (2003), one for University of Florida (2004), one for Columbia University (2004), and one for Case Western Reserve University (2004). The most difficult was by far Texas A&M University's "Texas Flash Flood" in 1999 due to its high wing loading. The easiest was Columbia University's "Leaking Lion". It could've easily been an R/C trainer. Stability is a good thing!
What do you think the most difficult competition year was, rules wise, and why?
The rules in the 1998-1999 competition year were not particularly difficult, but they were the most open-ended. Generally the aircraft can somewhat be optimized, but that was the year that the teams with the best equipment did well.
What are the worst crashes you remember?
Oh, the crashes! I think the most inconvenient crash happened to Washington State in 1997 when their aircraft went into the Chesapeake Bay. Probably the highest-velocity-at-impact crash was Queen's University's twin ducted propeller thing in 2001. Oh, but Clarkson University's tandem wing, twin-fuselage aircraft twisting wildly before it met the ground in 2000 was quite memorable as well!
Who's your favorite judge?
Hey, now! Am I really supposed to answer that?!?!? They're all great! I worked with several of them during my internships at the Naval Research Laboratory, and they're a really great group of people.
However, I must give Chris Bovais kudos for the work he's done every year. Chris is a super-friendly guy that stands firm in his decisions on the flight-line. His experience in directing R/C sailplane contests really shows in his dedication to make sure everything runs smoothly.
What changes to the rules do you think we'll see for next year? What changes do you think need to be made, if any?
Quite honestly, the contest coordinators have surprised me each year with the changes in the rules. After having worked in the UAV industry for a few years, though, I think the recent addition of having the aircraft disassemble and fit into a box of specified dimensions is a valuable, real-world requirement.
Building on this idea, I'd like to see a requirement for the teams to bring their aircraft in the box to the runway and have the assembly time go into the final flight time. This proves that the aircraft can be transported and assembled easily in a timely manner, just as it would be in a real reconnaissance or ferry mission.
Where do you see DBF in 2 years? 5 years?
I seem to recall the contest coordinators commenting on how the DBF was not to replace the autonomous-type competitions that are also out there. I can see it involving more rules to bring the aircraft toward something that can be mass-produced and easily used in the field.
What is the most important thing for new teams to keep in their heads during the long journey from announcement of rules to competition?
Don't put off flight testing.
And keep it real.
