conceptual design and configuring airplanes thoughts on the design process and innovation
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Conceptual Design and Configuring Airplanes Thoughts on the design process and innovation

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 24

Conceptual Design and Configuring Airplanes Thoughts on the ... - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 79 Views
  • Uploaded on

Conceptual Design and Configuring Airplanes Thoughts on the design process and innovation. Affiliate Professor Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics University of Washington Seattle, WA. John H. McMasters Technical Fellow The Boeing Company [email protected] and.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Conceptual Design and Configuring Airplanes Thoughts on the ...' - liam


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
conceptual design and configuring airplanes thoughts on the design process and innovation

Conceptual Design and Configuring AirplanesThoughts on the design process and innovation

Affiliate Professor

Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics

University of Washington

Seattle, WA

John H. McMasters

Technical Fellow

The Boeing Company

[email protected]

and

April 2007

Ed Wells Partnership Short Course

Based on:

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) & Sigma Xi Distinguished Lectures &

Von Kármán Institute for Fluid Dynamics Lecture Series: “Innovative Configurations

for Future Civil Transports”, Brussels, Belgium June 6-10, 2005

slide2

Airplane Design: Past, Present and Future –

  • An Early 21st Century Perspective
  • John McMasters
  • Technical Fellow
  • Ed Wells Partnership
  • The central of several purposes of this course is to examine the co-evolution of our industry, aeronautical technology, and airplane design practice in a broad historical context. Attention then focuses on speculations on possible future trends and development opportunities within an unconventionally broad and multi-disciplinary context. It may then be shown that while aeronautics may be a “maturing industry”, there are numerous opportunities for further advance in our ever-changing enterprise. The emphasis throughout will be concepts and ways of thinking about airplane design in a systems sense rather than on the details of the methodologies one might use in design. The material for this course is a continuing work in progress and represents the instructor’s personal, sometimes idiosyncratic perspective which is in no way intended to reflect an official position of The Boeing Company or its current product development strategy.
  • Course Objectives:
  • Provide familiarization to non-specialists on the topics to be discussed
    • airplane design,
    • systems thinking,
    • the value of very broad multidisciplinary inquiry)
  • Present airplane design and its evolution in a very broad historical context
  • Present one perspective on a general approach to airplane configuration synthesis at the
  • conceptual level
  • Provide a basic aeronautics and airplane design “vocabulary”
  • Stimulate thought and imagination about the future of aeronautics
  • Target Audience:
  • Anyone interested in airplanes and aeronautical technology in a very broad,
  • multi-disciplinary system sense.
warning
WARNING

ITAR and EAR Compliance

Important Security Information:

Registration for this course (the following notes for which contain no ITAR/EAR-sensitive information) does not enforce the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR) in any discussions that may result from it. Each attendee is responsible for complying with these regulations and all Boeing policies.

EAR/Compliance Home Site: http://policyplus.boeing.com/PS/PDF/DDD/PRO-2805.pdf

ITAR/Compliance Site: http://policyplus.boeing.com/PS/PDF/DDD/PRO-174.pdf

notation and symbols used
A Area (ft.2, m2)

a Speed of sound (ft./sec., m/s)

AR Aspect ratio, b/č = b2/S

b Wing span (ft., m)

č Average wing chord (ft.,m)

CF Force coefficients (lift, drag, etc.) = F/qS

Cℓ Section (2D) lift coefficient

CM Moment coefficient = M/qSĉ

Cp Pressure coefficient = Δp/q

D Drag force (lb., N)

E Energy (Ft.-lbs., N-m)

e “Oswald efficency factor”

ew Wing span efficiency factor (= 1/kw )

F Force (lift, drag, etc.) (lbs., N)

H Total head (reservoir pressure)

I Moment of inertia

kw Wing span efficiency factor (= 1/ew)

L Lift force (lb., N)

ℓ Length (ft., m)

M Mach number (V/a)

M Mass (kg)

M Moment (ft. lbs., N m)

P Power (ft.-lbs./sec., N-m/sec.)

p Static pressure (lbs./ft.2)

q Dynamic pressure (lbs./ft.2) = ½ρV2

R Range (mi., km)

Rn Reynolds number (ρVℓ / μ)

S Wing area (ft.2, m2)

T Thrust (lb., N)

T Temperature (oF)

u Local x-direction velocity component

V Velocity, Speed (ft./sec., m/s, mph, km/h)

v Local y-direction velocity component

w Downwash velocity (ft./sec., m/s)

ż Sink rate (vertical velocity) (ft./sec., m/s)

Greek:

α Angle of attack (deg.)

Γ Circulation

γ Climb or glide angle (deg., rad.)

γ Ratio of specific heats in a fluid

ε Wing twist angle (deg.)

θ Downwash angle (deg.)

φ Velocity potential

Λ Wing sweep angle (deg.)

μ Dynamic viscosity

ν Kinematic viscosity (μ/ρ)

ρ Fluid mass density (kg/m3)

Notation and Symbols Used
slide5

Presentation Overview

  • Conceptual Design and Configuring Airplanes
    • Thoughts on the design process and innovation
slide6

Some VERY Basic Principles in Designing Airplanes

  • Flying is ultimately about “defying gravity”, thus Weight is generally
  • the dominant force in designing a good airplane (most of the time).
  • Historically, the dominant factor in advancing airplane performance
  • has been engine/propulsion technology [with structures/materials
  • (and thus weight) and aerodynamics contributing the rest].
  • Newton quoth: F = d(mV)/dt To create a given aerodynamic or propulsive force, it’s much better to move a lot of air through
  • a small ΔV than a lesser amount through a bigger ΔV.

Aerodynamic

Efficiency

(L/D)

Wing

Weight

But

Wing span 2/Total exposed area - ( b2 / Swet)

Wing Span

a classic configuration comparison modified from torenbeek and roskam who both got it serious wrong
A Classic Configuration Comparison(Modified from Torenbeek and Roskam who both got it serious wrong)

Boeing B-47 B

Avro “Vulcan” B.2

Boeing B-47 Avro Vulcan

Max. Take-off Wt. MTOW (lbs.) 202,000 204,000

Ref. Wing area S (ft.2 ) 1,428 3,965

Wetted Surface Area S wet (ft.2 ) 7,070 ~ 9,600

Wing Span b (ft.) 116 111

Aspect Ratio AR (= b2/S) 9.42 3.1

Max. Wing Loading W/S @TO (lb./ft.2 ) 141.5 51.5

Max. Span Loading W/b @TO (lbs./ft.) 1741 1834

Max. Lift/Drag Ratio L/D max ~18.1 ~ 16.8

Evolution of the Boeing B-47

velocity load factor v n diagrams
Velocity-Load Factor [V-n] Diagrams

Load Factor (n) = Lift (L) / Weight (W)

+

Max. Maneuver Load [ L = ½ρ V2CLmax S]

Load Factor

n = L / W

Vertical Gust

Loads

Vmin≈ Vstall

0

Vcruisemax

Vdive max

Velocity - V

-

Design and Gust Load conditions per appropriate Regulations (e.g. FARs)

wing weight estimation based on simple beam theory
Wing Weight Estimation(based on simple beam theory)

Wing span (b)

L 2

Lift (L) 2

  • Modes of Failure (static or dynamic):
    • Bending strength
    • Bending deflection
    • Torsional strength
    • Torsional deflection
    • Buckling
    • Flutter (either in bending or torsion)

U = weight of everything but the wing

W = U + Wwing

Load factor = n = L W

AR = b2/S = b / c avg

Total Weight = W ~ U + C[ n U b AR (c/t) ] Є

Chord ( c )

Thickness (t)

trying for the ideal swept wing for a long range cruising airplane
Trying for the “Ideal” Swept Wingfor a Long-Range Cruising Airplane
  • Actual wing “length” is different than
  • the wing span (b). [Length (L) = b sec Λc/4 ]
  • Defining the “aerodynamically effective”
  • area of this wing is problematical
  • Perspectives in Cruise Wing Design
  • Aerodynamics:
  • Provide lift required with minimum surface area
  • Minimum drag at design condition(s)
  • Acceptable stability and control characteristics
  • (no “Mach tuck”, pitch-up, etc.)
  • Compatible with high-lift (take-off and landing)
  • requirements
  • Structures & Manufacturing
  • Adequatethickness (everywhere)
  • Increasing span is going to cost you
  • Mostly straight lines and no compound curves
  • (except maybe parts that can be made of plastic)
  • Other Folks (Propulsion, Systems, etc.)
  • Good “rack” for hanging engines from, etc.
  • Adequate fuel volume
  • Room for all the actuators and other systems
  • (e.g. the landing gear)
  • Management
  • Minimum cost
  • Marketable (looks good, etc.)
  • NOT a subject of endless trade-studies

Leading edge glove to minimize “root effects” or allow greater local thickness

Straight

isobars

Λc/4

Tip raked to avoid local “unsweep” effects

“Yehudi”

Constant shock sweep

Wing span (b)

(compatible with terminal gate limits)

area ruling the convair f 102
Area Ruling the Convair F-102

Convair F-106

F-102 Before Area Ruling F-102 After Area Ruling

slide12

Subsonic Area Ruling

Junkers patent drawing March 1944

Otto Frenzl + Heinrich Hertel

Heinrich Hertel

1902-1982

Junkers Ju 287 circa 1944

Heinkel P. 1068 circa 1944

Heinkel P. 1073 circa 1944

slide13

Transonic Area Ruling

Martin XB-51

Boeing “7X7”

circa 1972

Mcruise≈ 0.96

Boeing study

circa 1995

Mcruise = 0.95

Blackburn “Buccaneer”

transonic tailoring and k chemann carrots
Transonic Tailoring and Kϋchemann “Carrots”

Oblique Wing (“ideal” area ruling )

Shockwaves

Kϋchemann

“carrots” or

Whitcomb

“speed bumps”

Horizontal tail staggered relative to vertical tail

Tupolev Tu 20 “Bear”

Convair CV 990

sonic booms and their amelioration toward a viable supersonic business jet ssbj
Sonic Booms and Their Amelioration(Toward a viable supersonic business jet –SSBJ ?)

Bow shock wave

Tail wave

Modified

N-wave

ΔP - Classic N-wave

sonic boom signature

NASA modified F-5E for sonic boom reduction

SSBJ concepts

Ground footprint of sonic boom

a summary of early progress in airplane technology
A Summary of Early Progress in Airplane Technology

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

  • Streamlining
  • Retractable
  • landing gear
  • High-lift devices

Supersonic

flight

Airplanes prove their

utility in WW 1

Aerodynamics

Propulsion

Materials &

Structures

Systems

Biplanes to

monoplanes

Swept wing

Boeing B-47

Internal combustion

Engines

Jet engines

Coanda “ducted fan”

DeHaviland “Comet”

Wood, Steel,

Fabric

Aluminum airplane

(Junkers)

Modern air transportation

Digital

Micro-process

Communications & Navigation Aids

Parachutes & Safety Systems

Pressurization

Radar

slide17

Future Large “Airplane” Development Opportunities

  • Civil
    • Future design must be increasingly efficient, quite, safe, and cost effective.
  • Military
    • The B-52 has been operational for 50 years.
    • Will the B-1 & B-2 remain viable for similar time periods? UCAV replacements??
    • Global range logistics will remain a key element in future US foreign policy and peace-keeping.
  • Aerospace
    • All “airplanes” must take off and land. Even hypersonic vehicles must be designed for “low-speed” operations.
  • Non-Traditional
    • To meet future transportation system needs, new technologies my beexploitable in the 21st century.

787

707

747

767

777

727

A 380

SST ?

Airbus

737/A320Replacements

DC-8

737

757

737-NG

DC-9

DC-10

Blended

Wing-Body

B-52

B-1

Future Strategic Strike/

Recon. Requirements?

B-2

Future Logistics Requirements

[ Military and Civil ]

C-141

C-5

C-17

X-20

DynaSoar

Space

Shuttle

NASP

X-34/X-43

Aerospace Planes ?

Ground Transport (Trains, Maglevs, etc.)

Surface Effect Vehicles

Lighter-Than-Air ?

1960 1980 2000 2020 2040

Year

airplane design technology progress
[Airplane] Design Technology Progress

Faster, Farther, Higher Quicker, Better, Cheaper

  • “Analysis & Testing”
  • Heavy reliance on testing
  • Handbooks methods important
  • Early computational capability
  • Widening gap between
  • engineering & manufacturing
  • “Computation & Validation”
  • Massive simulation capability
  • Testing shifts to validation
  • “Integrated Product Teams”
  • “Lean” concepts

Progress

  • “Cut & Try”
  • Heavy on experimentation
  • Very limited theory
  • Heavy on rules of thumb
  • Limited material choice

?

Possible Achievement

  • Issues & Constraints
  • Cost/profit uber alles
  • Geopolitical uncertainties
  • Environmental concerns
  • Critical resources availability
  • Lawyers (regulations, litigation, etc.)
  • All the “-ilities” (old and new)
  • (reliability, maintainability, etc., etc.)
  • Customer needs and wants

Actual

Achievement

1900 1950 2000

WW 2 Berlin Wall

Historical Time

evolution of airplane development process
Evolution of Airplane Development Process

In the beginning (to ~1950)

“Small” group

of engineers

develop a

design

Skilled

craftsmen

build it

Test

Identify a

need or

opportunity

Customer

Prototype

(Production )

Reqmts.

Drawings

Orders

yes

Potential customer(s)

no

Oblivion

evolution of airplane development process1
Evolution of Airplane Development Process

Maturing phase (~1950 - 1985)

Drawings

Engineers

Design

Build

Need or

Opportunity

Test

Customer

Prototype

(Production )

Reqmts.

yes

Orders

Yes

No

Launch

orders

no

Oblivion

Drawings

Engineering

  • Exhaustive
  • testing
  • Limited
  • prototyping
  • Strong link
  • between customer,
  • marketing and
  • requirements
  • Regulations,
  • standards., etc.
  • Manufacturing
  • Large
  • organization
  • Functional
  • separation
  • Large
  • organization
  • Functional
  • separation

Lots of paper and bureaucracy

evolution of airplane development process2
Evolution of Airplane Development Process

In the beginning (to ~1950)

Engineers

Design

Build

Need or

Opportunity

Test

Customer

Drawings

Reqmts.

Orders ?

yes

no

Modern era (post 1990)

Oblivion

Outsourcing

Acquire

“Defineproduce”

Support

  • Up the “value
  • chain”
  • No more paper
  • drawings
  • No more shims
  • “Flat(er)
  • organizations”

Customer

  • “Customer In”
  • Lots and lots of
  • lawyers
  • Engineering & Manufacturing
  • Large organizations
  • Integrated Product Teams (IPTs)
slide22

What Happens When You Let

Electrical Engineers Design Airplanes

Lockheed Martin F-117

evolution of the airplane development process
Evolution of the Airplane Development Process

One Possible Option for Our [Immediate] Future

Modern era (post 20XX) ?

Outsourcing/Risk Sharing

Large-Scale System Integration

Supplier management

Support

Acquire

Orders

“Defineassemble”

Test

Deliver

Requirements

ManufacturingEngineering

Customer

Quicker, Better, Cheaper ?

changing times in aerospace
Changing Times in Aerospace

Original Mantra (1903-1990):

Faster, farther, higher (and safer).

Post Cold War Mantra (1990-2000):

Quicker (to market), better, cheaper (and safer).

Emerging New Mantra (2001 - ?)

Safer, better, faster, higher, farther, cheaper, quicker, quieter, cleaner, etc..

Or: “Leaner, meaner, greener (and safer)” ?

ad