Group 13 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Stephen McNulty Richard-Marc Hernandez Jessica Pisano Yoosuk Kee Chi...

Group 13 Group 13 Heavy Lift Cargo PlaneHeavy Lift Cargo Plane

Stephen McNultyStephen McNultyRichard-Marc HernandezRichard-Marc Hernandez

Jessica PisanoJessica PisanoYoosuk KeeYoosuk Kee

Chi YanChi Yan

Project Advisor: Siva ThangamProject Advisor: Siva Thangam

OverviewOverview

Objectives Objectives

Schedule/ProgressSchedule/Progress

Design Concepts and Analysis Design Concepts and Analysis AirfoilAirfoil FuselageFuselage TailTail Landing GearLanding Gear

End of Semester DeliverablesEnd of Semester Deliverables

Next Semester GoalsNext Semester Goals

ObjectivesObjectives

Competition Specs are not posted for 2004 Competition Specs are not posted for 2004 competition competition The plane meets the specifications of the 2004 The plane meets the specifications of the 2004 SAE Aero Design East/West competitionSAE Aero Design East/West competitionTo finish the design of the plane by December To finish the design of the plane by December and begin construction and testing in Januaryand begin construction and testing in JanuaryTo compete well at competition and improve To compete well at competition and improve Stevens reputationStevens reputationFor the team to improve and expand their For the team to improve and expand their knowledge of the design and construction of knowledge of the design and construction of airplanesairplanes

ScheduleSchedule

Journal/ProgressJournal/Progress

Researched airfoil computer analysis Researched airfoil computer analysis softwaresoftwareCalculations for Airfoil Calculations for Airfoil Competition rules keep changing and are no Competition rules keep changing and are no

longer posted on websitelonger posted on website

Stereo-lithography LabStereo-lithography LabLanding Gear models and analysisLanding Gear models and analysisFuselage Design and CalculationsFuselage Design and CalculationsTail Design Tail Design

AirfoilAirfoil

Low camber, low drag, Low camber, low drag, high speed, thin winghigh speed, thin wing

Deep camber, high lift, Deep camber, high lift, low peed, thick winglow peed, thick wing

Deep camber, high lift, Deep camber, high lift, low speed, thin winglow speed, thin wing

Low lift, high drag, reflex Low lift, high drag, reflex trailing edgetrailing edge

Symmetrical (cambered Symmetrical (cambered top and bottom)top and bottom)

AirfoilAirfoil

Airfoils used from previous years:Airfoils used from previous years: Year 2000: E 211Year 2000: E 211 Year 2001: E 423Year 2001: E 423 Year 2002: OAF 102Year 2002: OAF 102

From research:From research: E 214E 214 S 1223S 1223

CCLL vs. AoA vs. AoA

Airfoil MatrixAirfoil Matrix

Important Important

FactorFactor E122E122 E214E214 E423E423OAF10OAF10

22 S1223S1223

ClCl 55 11 22 22 33 55

CdCd 22 55 44 44 33 22

ConstructioConstructionn 33 55 55 44 44 33

OverallOverall 5050 3030 3333 3030 3333 3838

Airfoil Design and CalculationsAirfoil Design and Calculations

Wing:Wing:

Re (S1223)Re (S1223) 326529326529

Swet [in^2]Swet [in^2] 3016.64023016.6402

Wing Span [in]Wing Span [in] 120120

Wing Chord [in]Wing Chord [in] 1212

Sref [in^2]Sref [in^2] 14401440

ClmaxClmax 2.36482.3648

Cf (turbulent)Cf (turbulent) 0.0055595940.005559594

Cf (laminar)Cf (laminar) 0.0023240060.002324006

t/ct/c 0.1210.121

x/cx/c 0.20.2

FFFF 1.3844358881.384435888

Cdmin (turb)Cdmin (turb) 0.0161241530.016124153

Cdmin (laminar)Cdmin (laminar) 0.0067401730.006740173

Rc

t

c

tLFF

S

SCFFC

VL

ref

wetfD

]1001[

Re

4

min

Wing ShapeWing Shape

RectangularRectangular

TaperedTapered

Rounded (or Elliptical)Rounded (or Elliptical)

Swept WingSwept Wing

Delta WingDelta Wing

Wing Shape ComparisonWing Shape Comparison

Rectangular WingRectangular WingAdvantages:Advantages:

Greater aileron controlGreater aileron control East to constructEast to construct

Disadvantages:Disadvantages: Not efficient in terms of stall and dragNot efficient in terms of stall and drag

Tapered WingTapered WingAdvantages:Advantages:

Decrease drag / Increase liftDecrease drag / Increase lift Harder to constructHarder to construct

Disadvantages:Disadvantages: Not as efficient in terms of stall and dragNot as efficient in terms of stall and drag

Wing Shape ComparisonWing Shape Comparison

Elliptical WingElliptical WingAdvantages:Advantages:

Minimum dragMinimum drag Most efficient compared to rect. and taperedMost efficient compared to rect. and tapered

Disadvantages:Disadvantages: Hardest to constructHardest to construct

Swept and Delta WingsSwept and Delta WingsAdvantages:Advantages:

Minimum drag in high speedMinimum drag in high speed Very stable and flexibleVery stable and flexible

Disadvantages:Disadvantages: Suitable only for high speed aircraftsSuitable only for high speed aircrafts

Wing Shape MatrixWing Shape MatrixWingWing EfficiencyEfficiency StallStall

CharacteristicCharacteristic

Construct.Construct. OverallOverall

importanimportancece

44 55 44 6565

Rect.Rect. 44 44 55 5656

TaperedTapered 44 44 44 5252

EllipticalElliptical 55 55 22 4848

SweptSwept 33 33 33 3636

DeltaDelta 33 33 33 3636

Dihedral angleDihedral angle

Dihedral WingDihedral Wing

Flat WingFlat Wing

Cathedral WingCathedral Wing

Gull WingGull Wing

Wing Angle ComparisonWing Angle Comparison

Dihedral WingDihedral WingAdvantages:Advantages:

Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to sideHelps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turningHelps stabilize aircraft motion when turning

Disadvantages:Disadvantages: Stress concentration at wing rootsStress concentration at wing roots Harder to constructHarder to construct

Flat WingFlat WingAdvantages:Advantages:

Easy to constructEasy to construct Load distribution is equally spread out the wingLoad distribution is equally spread out the wing

Disadvantages:Disadvantages: Not as stable as dihedral wingsNot as stable as dihedral wings

Wing Angle ComparisonWing Angle ComparisonCathedral WingCathedral Wing

Advantages:Advantages: Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to sideHelps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turningHelps stabilize aircraft motion when turning

Disadvantages:Disadvantages: Stress concentration at wing rootsStress concentration at wing roots Harder to constructHarder to construct Suitable for high speed cargo planes Suitable for high speed cargo planes

Gull WingGull WingAdvantages:Advantages:

Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to sideHelps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turningHelps stabilize aircraft motion when turning

Disadvantages:Disadvantages: Stress concentration at the Gull pointStress concentration at the Gull point Hardest to constructHardest to construct Suitable for high speed aircraftsSuitable for high speed aircrafts

Wing Angle MatrixWing Angle Matrix

Important Important

FactorFactor DihedralDihedral FlatFlat CathedralCathedral GullGull

StabilityStability 55 55 33 55 33

performanceperformance 44 44 33 22 22

efficiencyefficiency 44 55 44 22 22

constructionconstruction 33 33 55 33 22

OverallOverall 8080 7070 5858 5050 3737

Number of WingsNumber of Wings

MonoplaneMonoplane

BiplaneBiplane

TriplaneTriplane

Number of Wings ComparisonNumber of Wings ComparisonMonoplaneMonoplane

AdvantagesAdvantages Easiest to constructEasiest to construct Very light weighted compared to Bi- and Tri-planesVery light weighted compared to Bi- and Tri-planes

DisadvantagesDisadvantages Produces less lift for the aircraftProduces less lift for the aircraft Less stable when turningLess stable when turning

BiplaneBiplaneAdvantagesAdvantages

Adds more lift to the aircraftAdds more lift to the aircraft More stable when turningMore stable when turning

DisadvantagesDisadvantages Harder to construct and repairHarder to construct and repair Adds more weight to the aircraftAdds more weight to the aircraft

TriplaneTriplaneAdvantagesAdvantages

Produces highest lift for aircraftProduces highest lift for aircraft Most stable compared to Mono- and Bi-planesMost stable compared to Mono- and Bi-planes

DisadvantagesDisadvantages Hardest to construct and repairHardest to construct and repair Adds more weight to the aircraftAdds more weight to the aircraft

Number of Wings MatrixNumber of Wings Matrix

Currently do not have one yetCurrently do not have one yet

2004 Aero East Design rules are not up2004 Aero East Design rules are not up

Decision is made based upon on the rules Decision is made based upon on the rules and regulations of the competitionand regulations of the competition

SelectionSelection

•Selig 1223•Rectangular •Dihedral

Fuselage Design and CalculationsFuselage Design and CalculationsFuselage:

length 25 in

width 5 in

planforrm area 151 in^2

wetted area 605 in^2

fuselage/boom

density 0.002175 slugs/ft^3

coefficient of viscosity 3.677E-07 slugs/ft-sec

Velocity (flight speed) 51 ft/sec

Re (turbulent) 628484.4982

l/d 5

Form factor 1.4925

Cf 0.004883112

Cd min (turbulent)Cd min (turbulent) 0.0292004440.029200444

FRFRFF

S

SCFFC

VL

ref

wetfD

0025.03)^/(601

Re

min

FuselageFuselage

PanelsPanels

WireframeWireframe

Cast MoldCast Mold

Injection MoldInjection Mold

Fuselage ComparisonFuselage Comparison

PanelsPanels

Pros:Pros:

LightweightLightweight

Easy to constructEasy to construct

Easy to assembleEasy to assemble

AffordableAffordable

Cons:Cons:

Not very strongNot very strong


Wire frameWire frame

Pros:Pros:

Very Strong and Very Strong and sturdysturdy

AffordableAffordable

Cons:Cons:

HeavyHeavy

Difficult to constructDifficult to construct


Cast MoldingCast MoldingPros:Pros:

Very accurate Very accurate shapeshapeAerodynamic Aerodynamic advantagesadvantagesStrong frameStrong frameNo assembly No assembly requiredrequired

Cons:Cons:

unaffordableunaffordable

Difficult to design Difficult to design a molda mold

No spare partsNo spare parts


Injection MoldingInjection MoldingPros:Pros:

Very accurate Very accurate shapeshapeAerodynamic Aerodynamic advantagesadvantagesStrong frameStrong frameNo assembly No assembly requiredrequired

Cons:Cons:

UnaffordableUnaffordable

HeavyHeavy

Difficult to design Difficult to design a molda mold

No spare partsNo spare parts

Fuselage MatrixFuselage MatrixImportanceImportance PanelsPanels Wire frameWire frame Cast MoldCast Mold Injection Injection

MoldMold

ConstructionConstruction 55 55 33 44 22

WeightWeight 55 55 44 33 22

CostCost 44 55 44 22 22

StrengthStrength 44 33 55 44 55

TotalTotal 9090 8282 7171 5959 4848

RankingRanking 11 22 33 44

SelectionSelection

Panel Fuselage

Boom Design and CalculationsBoom Design and Calculations

Tail Boom:

Re 1835174.735

length boom 48 in

length fuselage 25 in

length fuselage/boom 73 in

Swet 28 in^2

Sref 14 in^2

Cf (turbulent) 0.004001212

Cd min (turbulent) 0.008402546

05.1

Re

min

FF

S

SCFFC

VL

ref

wetfD

Tail BoomTail Boom

1 spar1 spar

2 spars2 spars

3 spars3 spars

3 or more panels3 or more panels

Tail Boom MatrixTail Boom Matrix

ImportanceImportance 1 spar1 spar 2 spars2 spars 3 spars3 spars 3 or more 3 or more panelspanels


WeightWeight 44 55 44 33 55

StrengthStrength 55 33 44 55 33

TotalTotal 6565 5555 5656 5757 5151

RankingRanking 33 22 11 44

SelectionSelection

Three Spar

Landing GearLanding GearImportance Importance

FactoFactorr 1 Nose1 Nose 1 Tail1 Tail 2 Nose2 Nose 2 Tail2 Tail

Without RodWithout Rod Steerability Steerability 33 55 33 55 44

ImpactImpact 55 22 33 33 44


TotalTotal 3737 3333 3939 4141

With RodWith Rod Steerability Steerability 33 55 33 55 44

ImpactImpact 55 3.53.5 4.54.5 44 55


TotalTotal 44.544.5 40.540.5 4444 4646

Ratings 1-5Ratings 1-5

Landing Gear AnalysisLanding Gear Analysis

SolidWorks modelsSolidWorks models Deflection AnalysisDeflection Analysis Stress AnalysisStress Analysis Deformation Analysis Deformation Analysis

Top fixedTop fixed

Force applied to bottom of legsForce applied to bottom of legs Force applied = 45lbsForce applied = 45lbs Force = Weight of planeForce = Weight of plane

Landing Gear Design 1 Landing Gear Design 1 AnalysisAnalysis

•Standard Main Landing Gear

•Aluminum

•Design Rejected

•Max Deflection .2238 in

•Stress Max 6.162e3 Psi

Landing Gear Design 2 Landing Gear Design 2 AnalysisAnalysis

•Main Landing Gear with Rod

•Aluminum

•Max Deflection .0196 in

•Stress Max 1.651 Psi

•Last years final design

Landing Gear Design 3Landing Gear Design 3AnalysisAnalysis

•Max Deflection 1.841e-3 in

•Stress Max 6.783e+2 Psi

•Main Landing Gear

•Truss Design

•Aluminum

•Design Being Strongly Considered


•Main Landing Gear •Modified Truss Design

•Aluminum

•Design Being Strongly Considered






•Main Landing Gear •Modified Truss Design•Modified for Lighter Weight

•Aluminum

•Selected

Tail Design and CalculationsTail Design and Calculations

Horizontal tail: Vertical Tail:

Re (NACA 0012) 175975.6 Re (NACA0012) 246365.9

chord (MAC) 7 in chord (MAC) 9.8 in

Swet 0 in^2 Swet 189 in^2

Wing Span 40 in Tail height 24 in

Sref 280 in^2 Sref 235.2 in

Clmax 0 Clmax

Cf (laminar) 0.003166 Cf (laminar) 0.002675

t/c 0.12 t/c 0.12

x/c 0.287 x/c 0.287

FF 1.271607 FF 1.271607

Cdmin (laminar) 0 Cdmin (laminar) 0.0027339

•Tail stabilizer does not provide lift to plane.

•Symmetrical airfoil is needed for vertical tail.

TailTailConventional TailConventional Tail

T-TailT-Tail

H-TailH-Tail

Triple TailTriple Tail

V-TailV-Tail

Tail MatrixTail Matrix

ImportanceImportance ConventionConventional Tailal Tail

T-TailT-Tail H-TailH-Tail Triple TailTriple Tail V-TailV-Tail

ConstructioConstructionn

55 55 44 44 33 44

Surface Surface Area/ DragArea/ Drag

44 44 44 44 33 44

Control/ Control/ StabilityStability

44 44 44 44 55 33

TotalTotal 6565 5757 5252 5252 4747 4848

RankingRanking 11 22 22 55 44

TailTail

Vertical Tail StabilizerVertical Tail Stabilizer 2ft2ft controls the horizontal controls the horizontal

movement of planemovement of plane keeps the nose of the keeps the nose of the

plane from swinging from plane from swinging from side to side side to side

Horizontal Tail StabilizerHorizontal Tail Stabilizer 3.33ft3.33ft controls vertical movement controls vertical movement

of planeof plane prevents an up-and-down prevents an up-and-down

motion of the nosemotion of the nose

ConstructionConstructionWing/Tail ConstructionWing/Tail Construction

Foam CoreFoam Core Risers (Balsa Wood)Risers (Balsa Wood)

Fuselage ConstructionFuselage Construction PlywoodPlywood Aluminum PlateAluminum Plate

Boom Construction Boom Construction Wooden DowelsWooden Dowels Carbon Fiber TubesCarbon Fiber Tubes PlywoodPlywood

Landing GearLanding Gear AluminumAluminum SteelSteel

TireTire Rubber Core Rubber Core Air Filled RubberAir Filled Rubber SpongeSponge

Construction MatrixConstruction Matrix

ImportaImporta

ncence

FoamFoam RisersRisers Aluminum Aluminum PlatePlate

PlywoodPlywood Wooden Wooden DowelsDowels

Carbon Carbon Fiber Fiber TubesTubes

AluminuAluminumm

SteelSteel Rubber Rubber CoreCore

Air Filled Air Filled RubberRubber

SpongeSponge

Ease Ease 33 22 44 55 55 55 44 44 33 33 33 44

StrengthStrength 33 44 44 55 55 33 55 33 44 44 55 22

Accuracy Accuracy 44 33 44 55 55 55 55 44 33 44 44 22

WeightWeight 55 33 55 22 44 44 55 44 33 22 44 55

MachineaMachineabilitybility

33 44 55 55 55 55 44 55 33 22 22 44

TotalTotal 5757 8080 7575 8585 7979 8787 7272 5757 5353 6666 6363

WingWing

TailTail

FuselageFuselage BoomBoom Landing Landing GearGear

TireTire

ME 423 Senior Design, Fall 2003. Project Number 13ME 423 Senior Design, Fall 2003. Project Number 13Team members: R. Hernandez, Y. Kee, S. McNulty, J. Pisano, C. Yan Advisor: Professor Siva Thangam Team members: R. Hernandez, Y. Kee, S. McNulty, J. Pisano, C. Yan Advisor: Professor Siva Thangam Title:Title: Creation of a Heavy Lift Radio-Controlled Cargo PlaneCreation of a Heavy Lift Radio-Controlled Cargo Plane

Objectives:Objectives: Design Results:Design Results:

Design Approach:Design Approach:

Computer Aided Drawing of Design:Computer Aided Drawing of Design:

Design Specifications:Design Specifications:

•Design a high performance heavy lift R/C cargo plane whose purpose is to carry the most weight possible

•Enter manufactured design into 2004 SAE Aero Design East Competition in Orlando, FL

•Carbon Fiber Spars connecting fuselage and tail

•S1223 airfoil

•balsa wood risers construction of stabilizers and wings

•Rectangular wing planform

•Horner plates (winglets) for improved flight characteristics

•Tail dragger landing gear configuration

•Unitized body fuselage

•Dihedral Wing

•Wingspan: 10ft•Engine: FX OS 2 stroke motor

0.61 cubic inches 1.9 hp•Minimum Cargo Area: 120 in3

•Cargo Weight: 35 pounds•Empty Plane Weight: 10 pounds•Plane Length: 7.5ft•Plane Height: 1 ft

•Technology

•Utilization of the latest airfoil simulations, composite materials, to obtain the lightest design that creates the most lift

•Maximum lift•Selection of airfoil and wing shape•Light materials•Drag reduction

Final DesignFinal Design


Completed Airplane design Completed Airplane design CalculationsCalculations CAD models and analysesCAD models and analyses

Completed parts list for plane constructionCompleted parts list for plane construction

Gantt Chart for spring semesterGantt Chart for spring semester

Budget Budget

SummarySummary

Objectives Objectives

Schedule/ProgressSchedule/Progress

Design Concepts and Analysis Design Concepts and Analysis AirfoilAirfoil FuselageFuselage TailTail Landing GearLanding Gear


Next Semester GoalsNext Semester Goals

Questions???Questions???

Group 13 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Stephen McNulty Richard-Marc Hernandez Jessica Pisano Yoosuk Kee Chi...

Documents

Transcript of Group 13 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Stephen McNulty Richard-Marc Hernandez Jessica Pisano Yoosuk Kee Chi...