Informal “2026 Colorado Design/Build/Fly” Competition
AAM Airpark
By: Joe Pirozzoli
About Design/Build/Fly (DBF)
“The 2025-2026 Design/Build/Fly Competition will celebrate its 30th year. Started in 1996 by the AIAA as an opportunity for university students to apply real-world aircraft design experience by giving them the opportunity to validate their analytic studies.
Student teams will design, fabricate, and demonstrate the flight capabilities of an unmanned, electric powered, radio-controlled aircraft which can best meet specified mission profiles. The goal is a balanced design possessing good, demonstrated flight handling qualities and practical and affordable manufacturing requirements while providing a high vehicle performance.
To encourage innovation and maintain a fresh design challenge for each new year’s participants, the design requirements and performance objective will be updated for each new contest year. The changes will provide new design requirements and opportunities, while allowing for application of technology developed by the teams from prior years.”
Over 200 universities and institutions of higher education, from around the world, will submit proposals for the chance to compete in the annual DBF fly-off. The proposals are graded by an AIAA committee, and only the top 100 (or so) are selected to participate.
For more information and to see video of the actual fly-off, please visit: https://www.aiaa.org/dbf/
AAM and its members have perennially been involved with DBF for many years. AAM has provided pilots for the University of Colorado (CU), Colorado State (CSU), Colorado School of Mines (CSM), and numerous other universities in the US and the world, as well as lending the Airpark for aircraft and systems testing prior to the official fly-off. It is very unusual that none of the aforementioned Colorado teams made the cut for 2026.
However, AAM stepped up and agreed to host an informal (unofficial) version of the DBF fly-off, at the AAM Airpark, on the very same weekend (April 18th – 19th) as the official fly-off being held in Wichita, KS. Teams from CU, CSU and CSM were all set to compete in the Colorado DBF Fly-off.
Special thanks to Mark Stenson (AAM Education and Research Coordinator) and Dan Underkofler (AAM Events Coordinator and former DBF pilot) for facilitating the local fly-off.
2026 “Unofficial” DBF Fly-off Highlights
Two days were set aside for the fly-off (Saturday and Sunday) which would be held at the West field. I agreed to chaperone the teams in Dan’s absense for the entire weekend (if necessary). Saturday was a beautiful spring day, except it was just a bit chilly in the morning and windy as well. As such, all 3 teams scheduled to meet at 1 pm at West field. Due to the weather that day, there was also very little activity at the East field. So, after a brief discussion with the teams, we agreed to move the proceedings to the East field.
I do not know the exact details of the 2026 DBF missions, but they included aspects of speed, cargo capacity (i.e. weight), towing a banner, and combinations thereof. The cargo theme this year was “rubber ducks” and “hockey pucks”. As you can see from the pictures, both were to be incorporated into the aircraft’s payload. The challenge, as always, was for each team to complete a ground mission as well as 3 progressive flying missions.
The first mission that each team would undertake was to simply complete at least 1 lap of the prescribed flight pattern. The planes were ready and had presumably been test flown. I was ready to step in and pilot for any one (or all) of the teams, but each team brought with them an experienced RC pilot. The pilot for CSM is a actually a current member of AAM. CU’s pilot is a member of the Boulder club and CSU’s pilot is from Love Air.
There was no pre-determined flight order, but CSU agreed to fly first. The CSU plane was stable and appeared to fly very well. However, shortly after takeoff, and before the plane returned to the center of the field, one of its hatch doors had come loose and was flapping in the breeze. It did not come off, but the team agreed that after completing 1 lap they would land immediately. I do believe that they were also timing the lap. Upon landing, which was a bit bumpy, the nose gear became dislodged. The landing gear was definitely repairable for a second flight if necessary. As it would turn out, this would be the most successful of all the attempts that day.
CSM would be next. Their plane was probably the least accomplished in terms of construction. I noticed a rather significant gap between the trailing edge and the wing and the ailerons. By significant, I mean about ¼ – ½ inch gap. I wondered how negatively that might affect flight performance, but did not interfere. Immediately upon takeoff, it was apparent that the plane was either under-powered or over-weight. The pilot was able to successfully navigate the first turn and the circle at the center of the field, but when he tried turning on the down wind leg, it lost airspeed, stalled and crashed. CSM was definitely done for the day.
CU was last. Their plane was larger, had twin motors as was capable of carrying 32 rubber ducks and at least 5 hockey pucks. It was not necessary to carry the payload on the first flight, but this is worth mentioning because, if successful, they may have easily won the cargo mission challenge. CU’s plane also had a very long fuselage and a large conventional tail. Upon takeoff it was obvious that the plane had plenty of power and was very stable. Unfortunately, very shortly after takeoff, but not before it was able to gain about 75 feet of altitude, the elevator dislodged from the stab, and the plane came crashing to ground. This ended their day as well.
As is always the case, DBF began with great enthusiasm and excitement. And, as is often the case with many teams, DBF presents significant challenges and disappointments. As mentioned earlier, CSU had the most success having actually completed a full flying lap and having landed their plane with only minor damage to the nose gear. However, under the strict rules of DBF, a mission is not successfully completed unless the plane is landed and completely intact. Thus, the Colorado 2026 DBF Fly-off techically finished without a clear winner.
Epilogue
Even though this was not the official fly-off, nor did it include nearly 100 teams from around the world, nor was it held in an exotic location such as Wichita, KS, I believe it was just as exciting and exhilarating for these CO teams. I also believe that they put in just as much time and effort as they would have for the official competition. After all, there is a lot of pride and competitiveness between these “in-state” rivals. And, all the teams exhibited the great sportsmanship and camaraderie that is typical of the DBF fly-off.
I too felt the same exhileration and sense of belonging that I’d felt the numerous times I piloted (and assisted) at official DBF fly-off’s in both Wichita and Tucson. Being around and working with these undergraduate engineering students takes me back to my college days at “Whiskey Tech”, and it reminds me of my own children when they were undergrads. It does, in a very real way, make me feel alive and young again with attitude that everything is possible. The fact that this interation also involves the hobby that I am most passionate about is simply icing on the cake! I will always accept an invitation to participate in DBF.
University of Colorado (Team CU)
Colorado State University (Team CSU)
Colorado School of Mines (Team CSM, not all present)
Lots of Rubber Ducks
and Hockey Pucks