System Requirements Review

System Requirements Review - AAE 451 - Team 5

February 20, 2007

Slide 1

System Requirements Review

Robert AungstChris ChownMatthew GrayAdrian Mazzarella

Brian BoyerNick GohnCharley HancockMatt Schmitt

Team 5


February 20, 2007

Slide 2

Contents

• Problem Definition• Product Overview• Business Case• Competition• Customer Attributes• Design Requirements


February 20, 2007

Slide 3

Problem Definition

• Develop an Unmanned Aerial System to maintain an “area of coverage” for some desired capability

• Study potential customers and develop business case, concept of operations, and system requirements

• Conduct trade studies to generate design requirements


February 20, 2007

Slide 4

Concept of Operations

• Continuous area coverage of metropolitan areas and beaches for advertising purposes

• Instead of one constant message, such as in banner towing, multiple advertisements will be presented

• Large LED screens will display advertising in a preset rotation

• Business will be developed around this new technology

• Seven UAVs based at one South Florida airport, serving 3 high population areas


February 20, 2007

Slide 5

• Typical Mission1. UAV fueled and advertisements loaded2. Takeoff, then cruise to target area (<175 nm)3. Loiter 6 hours while displaying advertising (~50 kts)4. Cruise back to base and land

• Continuous area coverage of 18 hrs (6am to 12am)

– 3 missions with 6 hour loiter per city– 3 cities total; 9 missions per day– Current plane Requirement: 7

Concept of Operations (continued)


February 20, 2007

Slide 6

Payload Definition

• Two High Intensity LED Screens– 7.42 ft X 45 ft

• ½ Billboard size• Viewable up to 1500 ft

– 1000 lbs installed (each)• Screen Weight: 3lbs/sq.ft.

– Off the shelf product• $180,000 cost

– Power consumption• 19.5 kw / 26 hp

– Daytime viewable• Brightness: 6500 cd/m²

– Dynamic display• 60 fps video/text

– Weatherproof


February 20, 2007

Slide 7

Current Markets

• Outdoor Advertising is currently billboard dominated

• Aerial Advertisement is a subset of the 17% Alternative Outdoor Category

• In 2005, an estimated $183 billion was spent on advertising– Outdoor Advertisement

generated $6.3 of this $183 billion

• According to the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA), outdoor advertising is the fastest growing medium after the internet


February 20, 2007

Slide 8

Current Markets

• Manned Aerial Advertising Markets

– NASCAR: 130,000 – 200,000 people

– Major League Baseball: 20,000 – 70,000 people

– Concerts: 20,000 – 100,000 people

– Professional / College Football: 50,000 – 150,000

people

– Professional Soccer: 20,000 – 100,000 people

– Beaches: 15,000 – 1,500,000 people


February 20, 2007

Slide 9

Retention of Aerial Advertising

• Little Studio Design and Research– Conducted 750 interviews on four

South Florida beaches– Findings:


February 20, 2007

Slide 10

Advantages Over Current Aerial Advertising Methods

• Full Motion Advertising– Maintains captive audience

• More Exposures• Dynamic Messages

– Supports multiple customers– Market-driven advertising– Redefines business model


February 20, 2007

Slide 11

Current Markets

• Targeting Options– Geographic– Demographic– Event

• Company Contracts– Firms decide where

they wish to be advertised

– This usually occurs at high-volume events

2005 Top Ten OutdoorAdvertising Brands

1. McDonalds Restaurant 2. Cingular Wireless Service 3. Verizon Long Distance

Business & Residential 4. General Motors Corp Auto

& Truck 5. Anheuser-Busch Beers 6. Nextel Wireless Services 7. Warner Bros Movies 8. Coca-Cola Soft Drinks 9. Verizon Wireless Service 10. Miller Beers

Source: OAAA


February 20, 2007

Slide 12

Potential Markets

• Preliminary home base will be a general aviation airport in Central Florida– Sebring Regional– Naples Municipal– Lakeland Linder Regional

• These airports provide convenient access to numerous potential target areas– Miami– Orlando– Tampa– Key West– Ft. Lauderdale– West Palm Beach

• Year-round capability


February 20, 2007

Slide 13

Potential Markets

• Domestic Expansion Possibilities– Southern California– Jersey Shore/ Long

Island– Chicago/ Lake Michigan– Las Vegas

• International Expansion Possibilities– Mediterranean Europe– Coastal Australia– Mexico/ Carribbean

• Five Year Outlook– New bases will be

opened in areas with the greatest economic potential

– These areas will be capable of reaching multiple target segments

– Desired markets will have high exposure rates combined with low transportation costs


February 20, 2007

Slide 14

Business Costs and Revenue

• Startup costs:– Aircraft Components: $10,000,000 /

plane– Tooling for construction: $10,000,000– Payroll during construction: $1,200,000– Advertising: $2,100,000– Hangar Costs: $405,000

• Operating Costs (per year):– Fuel: $3,100,000– Payroll: $1,200,000– Advertising: $720,000– Maintenance: $1,400,000– Hangar Costs: $405,000

• Revenue:– $1500 / hr– 3 cities / 18 hrs a day– Yearly: $22,400,000

Yearly Income: $15,000,000

Years to Break Even: 5


February 20, 2007

Slide 15

Aerial Advertising Alternatives

• Cessna 182– Loaded Weight: 3,110 lb– Cruise Speed: 145 kts– Stall Speed: 49 kts– Range: 930 nm

• Stinson 108– Loaded Weight: 2,400 lb– Cruise Speed: 111 kts– Stall Speed: 65 kts– Range: 434 nm

• American Blimp Corp. A-170– Payload: 4650 lb– Cruise Speed: 14 kts– Stall Speed: N/A– Range: 504 nm

Source: Airliners.net


February 20, 2007

Slide 16

Similar UAVs

• Northrop Grumman Global Hawk– Length: 44 ft– Loaded Weight: 22,900 lb– Cruise Speed: 350 kts– Endurance: 34 hrs

• General Atomics Predator A– Length: 28 ft– Loaded Weight: 2,250 lb– Cruise Speed: 70 kts– Endurance: 24 hrs

• General Atomics Predator B– Length: 36 ft– Loaded Weight: 10,000 lb– Cruise Speed: 220 kts– Endurance: 14 hrs

Source: Airliners.net


February 20, 2007

Slide 17

QFD: House of Quality

Impo

rtan

ce

Loite

r T

ime

L/D

Siz

e of

LE

D S

cree

n

Cru

ise

Vel

ocity

Loite

r V

eloc

ity

Spe

cific

Fue

l Con

sum

ptio

n (A

ssum

ing

Fue

l)

Cru

ise

Ran

ge

Thr

ust-

to-W

eigh

t Rat

io

Stif

fnes

s-T

o-W

eigh

t Rat

io

Tur

n R

adiu

s

Rat

e of

Clim

b

Tak

eOff

Dis

tanc

e

Tak

eoff

Wei

ght

Flight Endurance 4 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 3 9 0 6 3 9

Takeoff/Landing Distance 9 1 9 9 0 0 3 1 9 9 0 3 9 9

Low "Fuel" Consumption 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 9 9 1 6 1 9

Autonomous Flight 1 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 0

Climb Performance 10 1 9 9 0 0 3 1 9 6 1 9 3 9

Ground Control 6 1 0 0 6 6 3 3 3 0 9 3 3 0

Display Dynamicism 5 0 0 9 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Easy to adjust text for different altitudes 12 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1

Ability to adjust loiter speed to read text 16 6 0 3 0 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

"Stability" 7 1 0 3 6 6 0 1 1 6 3 3 6 9

Noise 8 1 1 1 3 6 9 0 6 0 0 3 9 6

Visibility of messages in all conditions 2 0 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Low Pollution 13 6 3 1 9 9 9 3 6 1 1 3 3 6

Maintainability 11 3 0 6 0 0 3 3 3 9 0 0 0 6

"WOW " effect 15 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Manufacturability 14 3 0 9 0 0 3 3 3 9 0 0 0 6

367 281 750 285 489 498 200 436 484 110 334 297 653

0.066 0.051 0.135 0.051 0.088 0.090 0.036 0.078 0.087 0.020 0.060 0.053 0.1178 12 1 11 4 3 13 6 5 14 9 10 2

8.0 22.0 360.0 135.0 45.0 0.5 400 0.5 100.0 2500.0 3000.0 7000.06.0 17.0 180.0 120.0 60.0 0.8 350 0.3 150.0 1500.0 5000.0 10000.0

hrs. sq. ft. knots knots 1/hr nm ft. FPM ft. lbs.S/L Std.

TargetsThresholds

HOW

Importance (Absolute)

Importance (Relative)Rank of Absolute Importance

WH

AT

S

Per

form

ance

Ada

ptab

ility

Env

ironm

ent


February 20, 2007

Slide 18

Target Design Requirements

• Loiter Velocity:• Cruise Velocity:• Clean L/D:• Specific Fuel

Consumption:• Cruise Range:• Loiter Time:• Size of Screen:

55 kts135 kts22

0.5 / hr400 nm8 hr8’ x 45’


February 20, 2007

Slide 19

Database of Existing UAVs

.0465330 .0605546 .0542898 .19196890 max1.661224e

payo

WW W E V

W

• Sample Database of Existing UAVs:

• From database of existing UAVs, we created a least squares data fit to find an estimated empty weight fraction:

UAV NameWo [lb]

(Gross Takeoff Weight)We [lb]

(Empty Weight)We/Wo

(Weight Fraction)Wpay [lb]

(Payload Weight) Endurance [hr] Vmax [kts] Engine Type

Vindicator 1,199.00 589.60 0.4917 198.00 20.00 150.00 pistonSkyeye R4E UAV 1,249.60 737.00 0.5898 268.40 12.00 110.00 pistonI-GNAT 1,546.60 897.60 0.5804 200.20 52.00 140.00 t-charged pistonHunter RQ-5A 1,620.00 999.00 0.6167 200.00 11.60 106.00 pistonHelios 1,650.00 1,322.00 0.8012 200.00 24.00 23.46 electricHunter MQ-5B 1,800.00 1,320.00 0.7333 200.00 18.00 106.00 piston (heavy fuel)Altus 2,145.00 870.00 0.4056 150.00 24.00 99.87 t-charged pistonPredator 2,350.00 1,197.46 0.5096 448.80 40.00 117.23 t-charged pistonSkyWatcher 2,900.00 1,900.00 0.6552 490.00 15.00 150.00SkyRaider 4,000.00 1,800.00 0.4500 665.00 25.00 175.00Predator B 6,500.00 2,800.00 0.4308 750.00 24.00 230.00 turbopropRQ-3 DarkStar 8,600.00 4,360.00 0.5070 1,000.00 12.00 299.48Proteus 12,500.00 5,900.00 0.4720 7,260.00 18.00 280.00 turbofanGlobal Hawk (Tier II Plus) 25,600.00 9,200.00 0.3594 2,000.00 42.00 343.00 turbofan


February 20, 2007

Slide 20

Historical Empty Weight Fraction vs. Gross Weight

Empty Weight Fraction vs. Gross Takeoff Weight (lbs)

R2 = 0.3902

0.0000

0.1000

0.2000

0.3000

0.4000

0.5000

0.6000

0.7000

0.8000

0.9000

0.00 5,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 20,000.00 25,000.00 30,000.00

Gross Takeoff Weight (lbs)

Em

pty

Wei

gh

t F

ract

ion

Database Data

Linear Fit Model

Power (Database Data)


February 20, 2007

Slide 21

Historical Empty Weight Fraction vs. Payload Weight

Empty Weight Fraction vs. Payload Weight (lbs)

R2 = 0.2341

0.0000

0.1000

0.2000

0.3000

0.4000

0.5000

0.6000

0.7000

0.8000

0.9000

0.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 4,000.00 5,000.00 6,000.00 7,000.00 8,000.00

Payload Weight (lbs)

Em

pty

We

igh

t F

rac

tio

n

Datebase Data

Liner Fit

Power (Datebase Data)


February 20, 2007

Slide 22

Gas Turbine vs. Gas Propeller vs. Electric Propeller

7000 lbs15000 lbs

7000 lbs

• Studies estimate a GTOW of 7,000 lb, very near threshold value

• Asymptote in electric propulsion trade study shows infeasibility


February 20, 2007

Slide 23

Questions?

Thank you for your time!

Comments and Questions?

System Requirements Review

Documents

Transcript of System Requirements Review