Unit 6: Self-Identity English 9 Honors Carmack Bethel High School.
Chad Carmack Aaron Martin Ryan Mayer Jake Schaefer Abhi Murty Shane Mooney Ben Goldman Russell...
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Chad Carmack Aaron Martin Ryan Mayer Jake Schaefer Abhi Murty Shane Mooney Ben Goldman Russell...
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?