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

download Group 13 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Stephen McNulty Richard-Marc Hernandez Jessica Pisano Yoosuk Kee Chi Yan Project Advisor: Siva Thangam

If you can't read please download the document

  • date post

    16-Dec-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    215
  • download

    1

Embed Size (px)

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

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Group 13 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Stephen McNulty Richard-Marc Hernandez Jessica Pisano Yoosuk Kee Chi Yan Project Advisor: Siva Thangam
  • Slide 3
  • Overview ObjectivesSchedule/Progress Design Concepts and Analysis Airfoil Airfoil Fuselage Fuselage Tail Tail Landing Gear Landing Gear End of Semester Deliverables Next Semester Goals
  • Slide 4
  • Objectives Competition Specs are not posted for 2004 competition The plane meets the specifications of the 2004 SAE Aero Design East/West competition To finish the design of the plane by December and begin construction and testing in January To compete well at competition and improve Stevens reputation For the team to improve and expand their knowledge of the design and construction of airplanes
  • Slide 5
  • Schedule
  • Slide 6
  • Journal/Progress Researched airfoil computer analysis software Calculations for Airfoil Competition rules keep changing and are no longer posted on website Competition rules keep changing and are no longer posted on website Stereo-lithography Lab Landing Gear models and analysis Fuselage Design and Calculations Tail Design
  • Slide 7
  • Airfoil Low camber, low drag, high speed, thin wing Deep camber, high lift, low peed, thick wing Deep camber, high lift, low speed, thin wing Low lift, high drag, reflex trailing edge Symmetrical (cambered top and bottom)
  • Slide 8
  • Airfoil Airfoils used from previous years: Year 2000: E 211 Year 2000: E 211 Year 2001: E 423 Year 2001: E 423 Year 2002: OAF 102 Year 2002: OAF 102 From research: E 214 E 214 S 1223 S 1223
  • Slide 9
  • C L vs. AoA
  • Slide 10
  • Airfoil Matrix Important Factor E122E214E423 OAF10 2 S1223 Cl512235 Cd254432 Constructio n 355443 Overall503033303338
  • Slide 11
  • Airfoil Design and Calculations Wing: Re (S1223) 326529 Swet [in^2] 3016.6402 Wing Span [in] 120 Wing Chord [in] 12 Sref [in^2] 1440 Clmax2.3648 Cf (turbulent) 0.005559594 Cf (laminar) 0.002324006 t/c0.121 x/c0.2 FF1.384435888 Cdmin (turb) 0.016124153 Cdmin (laminar) 0.006740173
  • Slide 12
  • Wing Shape RectangularTapered Rounded (or Elliptical) Swept Wing Delta Wing
  • Slide 13
  • Wing Shape Comparison Rectangular Wing Advantages: Greater aileron control Greater aileron control East to construct East to constructDisadvantages: Not efficient in terms of stall and drag Not efficient in terms of stall and drag Tapered Wing Advantages: Decrease drag / Increase lift Decrease drag / Increase lift Harder to construct Harder to constructDisadvantages: Not as efficient in terms of stall and drag Not as efficient in terms of stall and drag
  • Slide 14
  • Wing Shape Comparison Elliptical Wing Advantages: Minimum drag Minimum drag Most efficient compared to rect. and tapered Most efficient compared to rect. and taperedDisadvantages: Hardest to construct Hardest to construct Swept and Delta Wings Advantages: Minimum drag in high speed Minimum drag in high speed Very stable and flexible Very stable and flexibleDisadvantages: Suitable only for high speed aircrafts Suitable only for high speed aircrafts
  • Slide 15
  • Wing Shape Matrix WingEfficiencyStallCharacteristicConstruct.Overall importan ce 45465 Rect.44556 Tapered44452 Elliptical55248 Swept33336 Delta33336
  • Slide 16
  • Dihedral angle Dihedral Wing Flat Wing Cathedral Wing Gull Wing
  • Slide 17
  • Wing Angle Comparison Dihedral Wing Advantages: Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turning Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turningDisadvantages: Stress concentration at wing roots Stress concentration at wing roots Harder to construct Harder to construct Flat Wing Advantages: Easy to construct Easy to construct Load distribution is equally spread out the wing Load distribution is equally spread out the wingDisadvantages: Not as stable as dihedral wings Not as stable as dihedral wings
  • Slide 18
  • Wing Angle Comparison Cathedral Wing Advantages: Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turning Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turningDisadvantages: Stress concentration at wing roots Stress concentration at wing roots Harder to construct Harder to construct Suitable for high speed cargo planes Suitable for high speed cargo planes Gull Wing Advantages: Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turning Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turningDisadvantages: Stress concentration at the Gull point Stress concentration at the Gull point Hardest to construct Hardest to construct Suitable for high speed aircrafts Suitable for high speed aircrafts
  • Slide 19
  • Wing Angle Matrix Important Factor DihedralFlatCathedralGull Stability55353 performance44322 efficiency45422 construction33532 Overall8070585037
  • Slide 20
  • Number of Wings MonoplaneBiplaneTriplane
  • Slide 21
  • Number of Wings Comparison MonoplaneAdvantages Easiest to construct Easiest to construct Very light weighted compared to Bi- and Tri-planes Very light weighted compared to Bi- and Tri-planesDisadvantages Produces less lift for the aircraft Produces less lift for the aircraft Less stable when turning Less stable when turningBiplaneAdvantages Adds more lift to the aircraft Adds more lift to the aircraft More stable when turning More stable when turningDisadvantages Harder to construct and repair Harder to construct and repair Adds more weight to the aircraft Adds more weight to the aircraftTriplaneAdvantages Produces highest lift for aircraft Produces highest lift for aircraft Most stable compared to Mono- and Bi-planes Most stable compared to Mono- and Bi-planesDisadvantages Hardest to construct and repair Hardest to construct and repair Adds more weight to the aircraft Adds more weight to the aircraft
  • Slide 22
  • Number of Wings Matrix Currently do not have one yet 2004 Aero East Design rules are not up Decision is made based upon on the rules and regulations of the competition
  • Slide 23
  • Selection Selig 1223 Rectangular Dihedral
  • Slide 24
  • Fuselage Design and Calculations Fuselage: length25in width5in planforrm area151in^2 wetted area605in^2 fuselage/boom density0.002175slugs/ft^3 coefficient of viscosity3.677E-07slugs/ft-sec Velocity (flight speed)51ft/sec Re (turbulent)628484.4982 l/d5 Form factor1.4925 Cf0.004883112 Cd min (turbulent) 0.029200444
  • Slide 25
  • Fuselage PanelsWireframe Cast Mold Injection Mold
  • Slide 26
  • Fuselage Comparison PanelsPros:Lightweight Easy to construct Easy to assemble Affordable Cons: Not very strong
  • Slide 27
  • Fuselage Comparison Wire frame Pros: Very Strong and sturdy Affordable Cons:Heavy Difficult to construct
  • Slide 28
  • Fuselage Comparison Cast Molding Pros: Very accurate shape Aerodynamic advantages Strong frame No assembly required Cons:unaffordable Difficult to design a mold No spare parts
  • Slide 29
  • Fuselage Comparison Injection Molding Pros: Very accurate shape Aerodynamic advantages Strong frame No assembly required Cons:UnaffordableHeavy Difficult to design a mold No spare parts
  • Slide 30
  • Fuselage Matrix ImportancePanels Wire frame Cast Mold Injection Mold Construction55342 Weight55432 Cost45422 Strength43545 Total9082715948 Ranking1234
  • Slide 31
  • Selection Panel Fuselage
  • Slide 32
  • Boom Design and Calculations Tail Boom: Re1835174.735 length boom48in length fuselage25in length fuselage/boom73in Swet28in^2 Sref14in^2 Cf (turbulent)0.004001212 Cd min (turbulent)0.008402546
  • Slide 33
  • Tail Boom 1 spar 2 spars 3 spars 3 or more panels
  • Slide 34
  • Tail Boom Matrix Importance 1 spar 2 spars 3 spars 3 or more panels Construction45554 Weight45435 Strength53453 Total6555565751 Ranking3214
  • Slide 35
  • Selection Three Spar
  • Slide 36
  • Landing Gear Importance Facto r 1 Nose 1 Tail 2 Nose 2 Tail Without Rod Steerability35354 Impact52334 Construction34333 Total37333941 With Rod Steerability35354 Impact53.54.545 Construction34333 Total44.540.54446 Ratings 1-5
  • Slide 37
  • Landing Gear Analysis SolidWorks models Deflection Analysis Deflection Analysis Stress Analysis Stress Analysis Deformation Analysis Deformation Analysis Top fixed Force applied to bottom of legs Force applied = 45lbs Force applied = 45lbs Force = Weight of plane Force = Weight of plane
  • Slide 38
  • Landing Gear Design 1 Analysis Standard Main Landing Gear Aluminum Design Rejected Max Deflection.2238 in Stress Max 6.162e3 Psi
  • Slide 39
  • Landing Gear Design 2 Analysis Main Landing Gear with Rod Aluminum Max Deflection.0196 in Stress Max 1.651 Psi Last years final design
  • Slide 40
  • Landing Gear Design 3 Analysis Max Deflection 1.841e-3 in Stress Max 6.783e+2 Psi Main Landing Gear Truss Design Aluminum Design B