slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Chad Carmack Aaron Martin Ryan Mayer Jake Schaefer Abhi Murty Shane Mooney Ben Goldman Russell Hammer Donnie Goepper Phil Mazurek Chris Simpson John Tegah

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 60

Chad Carmack Aaron Martin Ryan Mayer Jake Schaefer Abhi Murty Shane Mooney Ben Goldman Russell Hammer Donnie Goepper - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 109 Views
  • Uploaded on

AAE451 Conceptual Design Review. Team 2. Chad Carmack Aaron Martin Ryan Mayer Jake Schaefer Abhi Murty Shane Mooney Ben Goldman Russell Hammer Donnie Goepper Phil Mazurek Chris Simpson John Tegah. Conceptual Design Outline. Mission Summary Concept Summary Best Design

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 ' Chad Carmack Aaron Martin Ryan Mayer Jake Schaefer Abhi Murty Shane Mooney Ben Goldman Russell Hammer Donnie Goepper ' - roza


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
slide1

AAE451 Conceptual Design Review

Team 2

Chad Carmack

Aaron Martin

Ryan Mayer

Jake Schaefer

AbhiMurty

Shane Mooney

Ben Goldman

Russell Hammer

Donnie Goepper

Phil Mazurek

Chris Simpson

John Tegah

conceptual design outline
Conceptual Design Outline
  • Mission Summary
  • Concept Summary
  • Best Design
  • Advanced Technologies Review
  • Sizing Code
  • Engine Modeling
  • Aerodynamics
  • Performance
  • Structures
  • Stability and Control
  • Noise
  • Cost
  • Summary
mission statement
Mission Statement

To be the primary systems integrator of a high speed, long range executive transport system with unprecedented efficiency and minimal environmental impact.

design mission
Design Mission

2

3

7

6

Alternate

Los Angeles

Hong Kong

0

1

4

5

8

9

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)

7100 nm

200 nm

aircraft concept walk around
Aircraft Concept Walk-Around
  • Noise Shielding
  • Vertical Stabilizers
  • Lifting Canards

Circular Fuselage

  • Fuselage – aft
  • Mounted Engines

Noise Shielding

Low Wing

Spiroid Wing-Tips

lifting canard
Lifting Canard

Pros

Cons

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
Canard & N+2
  • The canard design had a smaller empty weight, but had a larger fuel burn which implies worse total drag performance
vertical stabilizer
Vertical Stabilizer
  • 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
Engine Mounting
  • 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
Cabin Considerations
  • 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
Summary of Advanced Concepts
  • Geared Turbofan
    • 15% reduction in fuel burn
    • Noised lowered to approximately 20 dB below stage 4
    • 50% below CAEP-6 emissions
  • Composites
    • 20% reduction of structural weight
  • Spiroids
spiroid wingtips
Spiroid Wingtips
  •  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
MATLAB Code Flowchart

Initial Guess Wo

Geometry Calculations

We Prediction

Wfuel Prediction

Engine Model

Drag Calculation

Set W0 guess to W0 calc

W0 Calculation

W0 = W0 calc

calibration factors
Calibration Factors
  • Calibrated Canard design to Beechcraft Starship
technology factors
Technology Factors
  • 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%
carpet plots conventional
Carpet Plots - Conventional
  • Best AR = 10 => W0 = 76000 lbs
  • Limited by top of climb (100 ft/min @ 41k ft) and takeoff distance (4000 ft)
carpet plots canard
Carpet Plots - Canard
  • Limited by top of climb (100 ft/min @ 41k ft) and takeoff distance (4000 ft)
canard sizing summary
Canard Sizing Summary
  • AR = 12
  • T/W = .34
  • W0/S = 87
  • W0 = 71,300 lbs
  • Wempty = 38,000 lbs
  • Wfuel = 31,500 lbs
  • Landing ground roll = 2200 ft
  • Takeoff ground roll = 3900 ft
drag prediction
Drag Prediction
  • Component drag build up based on four types of drag
    • Drag: pressure, induced, miscellaneous, and wave
    • Components: 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
Drag at Cruise
  • 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
Wing Airfoil Selection
  • Required Cl
    • Takeoff: 1.2
    • Cruise: 0.46
    • Landing: 2.0
  • Supercritical Airfoil use
    • Comparison 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
Flap Selection
  • 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
Tail airfoil Selection
  • 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
Canard airfoil
  • Symmetric Supercritical airfoil was desired for the canard
engine modeling
Engine Modeling
  • Engine Deck similar to CF-34
    • Generated with ONX/OFFX
  • Scaled From Data Sheet
    • Based on required thrust
engine description
Engine Description
  • Geared Turbofan
  • Sea Level Static Thrust: 11,900 lb
  • Bypass Ratio: 12:1
mission modeling
Mission Modeling
  • Calculated fuel weight for individual mission segments

2

3

7

6

25200 lbs

2700 lbs

1350 lbs

1400 lbs

0

1

4

5

8

9

130 lbs

280 lbs

250 lbs

125 lbs

280 lbs

7100 nm

200 nm

v n diagram
V-n Diagram
  • Aircraft limited by Clmax at low speeds and by the structure at high speeds
  • Design speed for max gust same as cruse speed due to Clmax at altitude
  • Maneuver load factor
    • nmax = 2.5
    • nmin = -1
  • Gust load factor
    • ns_max = 2.63
    • ns_max = -1.13
  • Dive Mach
    • Md= .87
payload range diagram
Payload Range Diagram

*Mach = 0.85

Altitude = 41,000 feet

Still air range

structural overview
Structural Overview

Fillets

Pylons Supported by Bulkheads/ Beams

Landing Gear Supporting Structure

Frames

Door Sills

Window Sills

Fillets

Fillets

Shear Webbing

Main Spar

Longerons

Fillets

material selection process
Material Selection Process
  • Static Dissipation and Electrically Conductive
  • Icephobic Coatings
  • Maintenance
  • Cost
  • Density and Fatigue Resistance
materials
Materials
  • 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
Aircraft Components
  • 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
Static Longitudinal Stability
  • 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 stable
    • Typical transport aircraft: 5-10%

Xnp

Xcg

control surface sizes
Control Surface Sizes

Raymer Figure 6.3 – Aileron Sizing

Raymer Table 6.5 – Elevator Sizing

noise estimation
Noise Estimation
  • The Method
    • Assumed that engine is primary noise source
    • Evaluated noise due to exhaust and fan
    • Obtained EPNL values with a few approximations:
      • Altitude at 6000m from runway after Takeoff
      • Altitude at 2000m from runway before Landing
      • Volumetric Flow Rate
      • Temperature
      • Pressure
noise estimation1
Noise Estimation
  • The Process
    • Find sound power of each source
    • Convert to sound power level (SWL)
    • Calculate sound pressure level (SPL) based on SWL and distance from source
      • Assumes spherical wave propagation
      • Adjust for A-weighted SPL
    • Calculate dominant tonal frequency
    • Convert to Noybased on SPL and dominant tonal frequency using equal loudness contours
    • Sum Noy for both the exhaust jet and fan
    • Convert from Noy to PNL
    • Calculate EPNL based on PNL
noise estimation2
Noise Estimation
  • The Results
    • EPNL dB prediction for engine models without airplane noise shielding
noise estimation3
Noise Estimation
  • Noise estimation for installed Geared Turbofan in EPNL dB
  • Stage 4 - total 274 EPNL dB
cost purchase price
Cost: Purchase Price
  • Production run of 150 aircraft assumed
    • Based on comparable aircraft, projected market growth
  • RAND DAPCA IV Model
      • CERs prepared from statistical cost data
      • Predicts RDT&E and flyaway costs
  • Engine costs estimated separately
    • GTF in appropriate thrust class assumed to exist in 2020
cost purchase price1
Cost: Purchase Price

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
Cost: Operations and Maintenance
  • Included expenses and assumptions:
    • Utilization: 500 hours per year – 200 cycles
    • Fuel Costs
      • Price: $4.50/gallon Jet A
    • Crew salaries
      • Three crew on average flight, paid per block hour
      • Estimated using CERs from Boeing data
    • Maintenance (labor and materials)
      • MMH/FH: 3
      • Materials costs estimated using RAND CERs
    • Insurance
      • Hull Insurance Rate: 0.32%
    • Depreciation
      • Average 10% of airframe value per year
cost operations and maintenance1
Cost: Operations and Maintenance

Fuel

Crew

Maintenance labor

Maintenance materials

Insurance

Depreciation

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)

plausibility
Plausibility
  • Not Currently
  • N+2 goals are difficult to meet
  • Worth pursuing
    • Significant improvements over current performance possible
additional work
Additional Work
  • Structural Analysis
    • Fatigue and temperature analysis
    • Sizing of spars and ribs
  • Aerodynamic Analysis
    • CFD
    • Wind Tunnel Testing
  • Manufacturing process
  • Engine
    • Boundary layer ingestion
ad