Chad CarmackAaron MartinRyan MayerJake SchaeferAbhi MurtyShane Mooney

Ben GoldmanRussell HammerDonnie GoepperPhil MazurekChris SimpsonJohn Tegah

AAE451 Conceptual Design Review

Team 2

Conceptual Design Outline

2

Mission SummaryConcept SummaryBest DesignAdvanced Technologies ReviewSizing CodeEngine ModelingAerodynamicsPerformanceStructuresStability and ControlNoiseCostSummary

Mission Statement

3

To be the primary systems integrator of a high speed, long range executive transport system with unprecedented efficiency and minimal environmental impact.

Design Mission

4

0-1: Take off to 50 ft. 5-6: Climb to

5000 ft. (Best Rate)

1-2: Climb to 41000 ft. (Best Rate) 6-7: Divert to

Alternate 200 nm

2-3: Cruise at Mach 0.85 7-8: 45 minute

Holding Pattern

3-4: Decent to Land (No Range Credit) 8-9: Land

4-5: Missed Approach (Go Around)

3

0 1

2

4 5

6 7

8 97100 nm 200 nm

Los Angeles Hong Kong Alternate

Concept Review

5

Aircraft Concept Walk-Around

6

• Lifting Canards

•Fuselage – aft Mounted Engines

•Noise ShieldingVertical Stabilizers

Noise ShieldingLow Wing

Circular Fuselage

Spiroid Wing-Tips

Major Design Parameters

7

Parameter Value

Thrust / Weight Ratio

0.34

Aspect Ratio 12

Wing Loading 87 (lb/ft2)

Wing Area 796.4(ft2)

Wing Span 97.8 (ft)

Canard Area 147.4 (ft2)

Canard Span 36.4 (ft)

Scale Three View

8

Interior Cabin Arrangement

9

Cabin Amenities and Features

10

List of Amenities / Features

Four Passenger Conference Seating

One Galley

One-Conference Table One-Cocktail Galley

Conference-Computer Table Two-Lavatories

Pull Down Projector Screen Twenty -28”x18” Windows

Six-Reclining Seats One-Pilot Rest Area

Two -3 Passenger Sofa Seats Two-Reclining Crew Seats

Two-Shared Tables

Maximum Passengers: 16 Volume / Passenger max cap.: 150 (ft3)

Cabin Layout and Dimensions

11

Lifting Canard

Pros Cons

12

Designed to provide more lift at high speeds

Reduces induced drag at cruise

May allow for smaller main wing

Downwash from canards has large effect on main wings

Stability demands that canard stall before main wing, therefore main wing never reaches full lift potential

Canard & N+2

13

The canard design had a smaller empty weight, but had a larger fuel burn which implies worse total drag performance

Vertical Stabilizer

14

Two vertical stabilizers are placed directly on the wings to shield the engines. The intent was to reduce the noise signature of the aircraft.

Engine Mounting

15

Two engines mounted in rear of the fuselage for reliability and thrust requirements

The benefit of mounting the engines above the wing and surrounded by vertical stabilizers will keep noise levels low.

Cabin Considerations

16

Stand up cabin in the aisle to accommodate the “plush” comfort level

Crew areas expanded to allow sleeping quarters for reserve pilot

Two lavatories and galley necessary for full passenger load

Summary of Advanced Concepts

17

Geared Turbofan15% reduction in fuel burnNoised lowered to approximately 20 dB

below stage 450% below CAEP-6 emissions

Composites20% reduction of structural weight

Spiroids

Spiroid Wingtips

18

•  6-10% drag reduction in cruise flight• Yielded a 10% improvement in fuel

burn• Installed on more than 3,000 aircraft,

including several business jet types, as well as the Boeing 737 and 757 airliners

• Aid the US Federal Aviation Administration in increasing airspace capacity near airports

•  Potential for large decreases in wake intensity. This could substantially alter the requirements for separation distances between lead and following aircraft in airport traffic patterns

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2008/06/spiroid-wingtip-technology-the.html

MATLAB Code Flowchart

19

Initial Guess Wo

Geometry Calculatio

ns

We Prediction

Engine Model

Drag Calculation

Wfuel Prediction

W0 Calculation

W0 = W0 calc

Set W0 guess to W0 calc

Calibration Factors

20

• Calibrated Canard design to Beechcraft Starship

Weight Conventional

Canard

Fuel Weight 0.89 0.89

Empty Weight 1.16 0.96

Gross Weight 1.03 0.98

Technology Factors

21

Composites reduced structural weight by 20%

Spiroids reduced SFC drag by 10%Canards reduce induced drag (assume 5-

10%)Geared turbofan reduced fuel burn (SFC) by

15%Application Tech Value

WStructure 0.80

Di (canard only)

0.93

SFC 0.75

Carpet Plots - Conventional

22

• Best AR = 10 => W0 = 76000 lbs

• Limited by top of climb (100 ft/min @ 41k ft) and takeoff distance (4000 ft)

8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 127

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

9x 10

4

W0

AR

Aspect Ratio vs W0 for Conventional a/c

Carpet Plots - Canard

23 Limited by top of climb (100 ft/min @ 41k ft) and takeoff distance (4000 ft)

10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 146.5

7

7.5

8x 10

4

AR

W0

Aspect Ratio vs W0 for Canard a/c

Canard Sizing Summary

24

AR = 12T/W = .34W0/S = 87W0 = 71,300 lbsWempty = 38,000 lbsWfuel = 31,500 lbsLanding ground roll = 2200 ftTakeoff ground roll = 3900 ft

Drag Prediction

25

Component drag build up based on four types of dragDrag: pressure, induced, miscellaneous, and waveComponents: pylons, engines, fuselage, wings, etc.

Induced drag is a sum of that produced by both the main wing and canard, with the canard contributing its own downwash onto the main wing

Viscous effects are not strong enough to damp out the downwash over the distance between the canard and main wing

Drag at Cruise

26

CD = kCD,p + TF*CD,i + CD,misc + CD,w

= 1.05CD,p + TF*CD,i + CD,w

= 0.01661 + 0.01002 + 0.00002

• CD,cruise = 0.02665

Wing Airfoil Selection

27

Required Cl

Takeoff: 1.2Cruise: 0.46Landing: 2.0

Supercritical Airfoil useComparison of RAE 2822

to NASA SC(2)-0610.NASA airfoil would provide

higher lift but have a greater moment.

NASA SC(2)-0610 selected for wing design.

Geometry and comparison from http://www.worldofkrauss.com/

Flap Selection

28

Regular flap vs Single slotted Flap

Higher lift, but more complex

Can meet required lift of 2.0 with only single slotted flap

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750064451_1975064451.pdf

Tail airfoil Selection

29

Small operating range for angles of attack.

Laminar flow foil selected to reduce drag.

Symmetrical airfoil.

NACA 64(2)-015 was selected for use.

Canard airfoil

30

Symmetric Supercritical airfoil was desired for the canard

Engine Modeling

31

Engine Deck similar to CF-34Generated with ONX/OFFX

Scaled From Data SheetBased on required thrust

Engine Description

32

Geared TurbofanSea Level Static Thrust: 11,900 lbBypass Ratio: 12:1

Mission Modeling

33

Calculated fuel weight for individual mission segments

3

0 1

2

4 5

6 7

8 97100 nm 200 nm

250 lbs 125 lbs

1350 lbs

25200 lbs

280 lbs

130 lbs

2700 lbs

1400 lbs

280 lbs

V-n DiagramAircraft limited by Clmax at low speeds and by the

structure at high speedsDesign speed for max gust same as cruse speed

due to Clmax at altitudeManeuver load factor

nmax = 2.5nmin = -1

Gust load factorns_max = 2.63ns_max = -1.13

Dive MachMd = .87

V-n Diagram

35

Payload Range Diagram

36

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 90000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500Payload Range Diagram

Range (nmi)

Pay

load

Wei

ght

(lbs)

*Mach = 0.85 Altitude = 41,000 feet Still air range

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 5500

0.5

1

1.5

2

x 104

Velocity (kts)

Thr

ust

(lbf)

Thrust Required Curve at Sea Level

Thrust Required

Thrust Available

Thrust Curves at Sea Level

37

250 300 350 400 450 500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Velocity (kts)

Thr

ust

(lbf)

Thrust Required Curve at 41000 feet MSL

Thrust Required

Thrust Available

Thrust Curves at Cruise

38

Structural Overview

Landing Gear Supporting Structure

Fillets

Fillets

Fillets

Fillets

Main Spar

Door Sills

Pylons Supported by Bulkheads/

Beams

Window Sills

Frames

Longerons

Shear Webbing

Structural Load Paths

Structural Highlights

41

Material Selection Process

42

Static Dissipation and Electrically Conductive

Icephobic CoatingsMaintenanceCostDensity and Fatigue Resistance

Materials

43

Silicones Ability to maintain its elasticity and low modulus over a broad

temperature range provides excellent utility in extreme environments Protection against static accumulation and discharge

Composites Light and very strong but maintenance is an issue and is expensive No Established data

Aluminum Lower cost Easier certification Established maintenance

Steels Used mainly in the landing gear

Advanced Alloys Higher elastic modulus Density savings

Aircraft Components

44

Fuselage skins and wing stringers - Aluminum Alloys Better Fatigue Crack Growth (FCG) performance reduces

structural weight.

Canard, Control surfaces and wing skin panels – Glare Composites Resistant to damage at high temperatures

Landing gear – Steel Alloy High strength, corrosion resistant

Nose, Leading and Trailing edges - Carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) Lighter than titanium

Higher fracture toughness and yield strength

Static Longitudinal Stability

45

Assuming symmetry about the centerline, changes in angle of attack no influence on yaw or roll of aircraft.

To achieve stability in pitch, any change in angle of attack must generate resisting moments.

Static Margin = (Xnp – Xcg)c.g. must be ahead of the neutral point in order to be stableTypical transport aircraft: 5-10%

Fuel CG [%fusela

ge]

SM[%

chord]

Full 68.3 18.3

Empty

62.0 85.8

Xcg

Xnp

Control Surface Sizes

46

Control Surface

Surface Area [ft2]

Rudder 10 x 2

Aileron 15

Elevator 35

Raymer Table 6.5 – Elevator SizingRaymer Figure 6.3 – Aileron Sizing

Noise Estimation

47

The MethodAssumed that engine is primary noise sourceEvaluated noise due to exhaust and fanObtained EPNL values with a few

approximations:Altitude at 6000m from runway after TakeoffAltitude at 2000m from runway before LandingVolumetric Flow RateTemperaturePressure

Noise Estimation

48

The ProcessFind sound power of each sourceConvert to sound power level (SWL)Calculate sound pressure level (SPL) based on SWL

and distance from sourceAssumes spherical wave propagationAdjust for A-weighted SPL

Calculate dominant tonal frequencyConvert to Noy based on SPL and dominant tonal

frequency using equal loudness contoursSum Noy for both the exhaust jet and fanConvert from Noy to PNLCalculate EPNL based on PNL

Noise Estimation

49

The ResultsEPNL dB prediction for engine models without

airplane noise shielding

Geared Turbofan

Unducted Fan

Sideline 97 102

Takeoff 90 95

Approach 97 100

Noise Estimation

50

Noise estimation for installed Geared Turbofan in EPNL dB

Stage 4 - total 274 EPNL dB

Location Airplane Noise [EPNL dB]

Sideline 87

Takeoff 80

Approach 87

Total 254

Cost: Purchase Price

51

Production run of 150 aircraft assumedBased on comparable aircraft, projected market

growthRAND DAPCA IV Model

CERs prepared from statistical cost dataPredicts RDT&E and flyaway costs

Engine costs estimated separatelyGTF in appropriate thrust class assumed to exist in

2020

Cost: Purchase Price

52

Engineering

Tooling

Manufacturing

Quality Control

Development Support

Flight Test

Manufacturing Materials

Engine Cost

Avionics Cost

Investment Cost Factor

Production Run

Aircraft Purchase Price

$1,250,000,000

$764,000,000

$2,186,000,000

$355,000,000

$210,000,000

$44,700,000

$886,000,000

$3,610,000

$1,820,000

10%

150 airframes

$49,700,000

(2009 dollars)

Cost: Operations and Maintenance

53

Included expenses and assumptions:Utilization: 500 hours per year – 200 cyclesFuel Costs

Price: $4.50/gallon Jet ACrew salaries

Three crew on average flight, paid per block hourEstimated using CERs from Boeing data

Maintenance (labor and materials)MMH/FH: 3Materials costs estimated using RAND CERs

InsuranceHull Insurance Rate: 0.32%

DepreciationAverage 10% of airframe value per year

Cost: Operations and Maintenance

54

FuelCrewMaintenance laborMaintenance materialsInsuranceDepreciation

Total Cost (No Depreciation)

Total (Depreciation)(500 flight hours per year)

$1,510/hr

$714/hr

$282/hr

$619/hr

$136,000/yr

$4,250,000/yr

$3,400/hr

$8,500/hr

(2009 dollars)

Summary

Requirements Compliance Matrix

56

Performance Characteristics

Target Threshold Current

Still Air Range 7100 nm 6960 nm 7100 nm

MTOW Takeoff Ground Roll 4000 ft 5000 ft 3900 ft

Max. Passengers 16 8 16

Volume per Passenger per Hour (Design)

13.3 ft3/(pax⋅hr) 2.28 ft3/(pax⋅hr) 20.7 ft3/(pax⋅hr)

Cruise Mach 0.85 0.8 0.85

Initial Cruise Altitude 41000 ft 40000 ft 41000 ft

Cumulative Certification Noise Limits

274 dB 274 dB 254 dB

Cruise Specific Range 0.3 nm/lb 0.26 nm/lb 0.31 nm/lb

Loading Door Sill Height 4 ft 5 ft 5 ft

Operating Cost $4100/hr $4300/hr $3400/hr

Summary of N+2 Goals

57

Criteria Goal Our Aircraft

Achieved

Noise -42 dB below Stage 4

-20 dB No

Emissions -75% -50% No

Fuel Burn -40% -25% No

Takeoff Field Length

-50% -33% No

Plausibility

58

Not CurrentlyN+2 goals are difficult to meetWorth pursuing

Significant improvements over current performance possible

Additional Work

59

• Structural Analysis• Fatigue and temperature analysis• Sizing of spars and ribs

• Aerodynamic Analysis• CFD• Wind Tunnel Testing

• Manufacturing process• Engine

• Boundary layer ingestion

Questions?