aae 451 senior aircraft design spring 2006 preliminary design review group vi l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
AAE 451 Senior Aircraft Design Spring 2006 Preliminary Design Review Group VI PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
AAE 451 Senior Aircraft Design Spring 2006 Preliminary Design Review Group VI

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

AAE 451 Senior Aircraft Design Spring 2006 Preliminary Design Review Group VI - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 385 Views
  • Uploaded on

AAE 451 Senior Aircraft Design Spring 2006 Preliminary Design Review Group VI Team Members: John Collins Chad Davis Chris Fles Danny Sze Ling Lim Justin Rohde Ryan Schulz Ronald Wong Yusaku Yamashita Market Review Target: Business Market Corporate Flight Departments

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 'AAE 451 Senior Aircraft Design Spring 2006 Preliminary Design Review Group VI' - Patman


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
aae 451 senior aircraft design spring 2006 preliminary design review group vi

AAE 451 Senior Aircraft Design Spring 2006Preliminary Design ReviewGroup VI

Team Members:

John Collins

Chad Davis

Chris Fles

Danny Sze Ling Lim

Justin Rohde

Ryan Schulz

Ronald Wong

Yusaku Yamashita

market review
Market Review
  • Target: Business Market
    • Corporate Flight Departments
    • Air Taxi and Air Charter
    • Fractional Shares
  • Profit Opportunities
    • Air taxi, fractional ownership expected to more than double in coming decade
    • Increasing incentive for use by small business
    • Strong business aviation growth expected in European and Asian markets over next 20 years
design requirements
Cabin Capacity - 2 Crew + 6 Passengers

Cruise Range - 600 nm

Cruise Speed - 250 kts

T.O./Landing Distance - 2,100 ft

Acquisition Cost - $1.8 Million

D.O.C./Hour - $550

Design Requirements
  • Pilots (150 lbs. each)
  • Passengers (200 lbs. each)
  • 1500 lbs. Total Payload

600 nm range

Reserve

Cruise

200 nm

cruise

+

45 min

loiter

V-cruise = 250 kts

@ 20,500 ft

Descend for Landing

Climb

Begin Landing

Take-off 2100 ft. Runway

Taxi

Execute Missed Landing

Land 2100 ft. Runway

sizing
Sizing
  • Major parameters
    • P/W = 0.1716 hp/lb
    • W/S = 32 lb/ft
    • AR = 7.6
    • TOGW = 6500 lb
    • λ = 0.4
  • Costs
    • Acquisition = $1.725 Million
    • Direct Operating = $450/Hour
  • Carpet Plot Approach
    • We/Wo – Regression:
    • P/W, W/S, AR, V-max, TOGW
    • We/Wo – Verified:
    • Component Weight Analysis
aerodynamics
Aerodynamics
  • Wing Airfoil Selection Criteria
    • High Clmax (Required Clmax=1.5)
    • High L/D (Required L/D = 11.66)
    • Low Cd
    • Low Cm.25 at cruise
    • NACA 22012 was selected as it can meet the requirements at a lower drag penalty than NACA 4412
    • 20 degree deflection of plain flaps located at ¾-chord were used during takeoff to augment the Cl required
slide8

Drag Polar

Cl – alpha curve with and without flaps

slide9

Aerodynamics – Wing Selection

  • Canard Airfoil
    • NACA 2212 was selected as it provides adequate CL at cruise to meet the L/D requirement.
  • Winglet Airfoil
    • NACA 4412 was selected based on Raymer’s textbook, “the camber of the winglet must be greater than that of the wing to ensure sufficient side force.”
drag estimation
Drag Estimation

Note: Figures might not add up due to rounding error

summary of aerodynamic performance
Summary of Aerodynamic Performance
  • CLmax = 1.622
  • CLcruise = 0.320
  • L/D = 12.26
  • Cd cruise = 0.026
  • Cd takeoff = 0.148
v n diagram
V-n Diagram

Vstall = 68 kts

Vcruise = 250 kts

Vdive = 280 kts

VAOA = 115.65 kts

structures
Structures
  • Box Beam Analysis Program
    • Compares Different Materials
    • Includes Tolerances
      • Deflection
      • Buckling
      • Shear
    • Program Minimizes Material Used
  • Loading Conditions
    • Trapezoidal Lift Distribution
    • Large Bending Moment at Wing Root
    • Lateral Forces Applied on Winglet
structures14
Structures
  • Results
    • Aluminum Composite
      • 140 lb Supporting Structure / Wing
    • Aluminum
      • 170 lb Supporting Structure / Wing
    • Loading Factor – 2.0 Before Failure
    • Further Optimization Required
component weight breakdown empty
Component Weight Breakdown (empty)

Total Empty Weight

= 3321.6 lb

propulsion
Propulsion
  • Propeller
    • Diameter - 8 ft
    • 4 Blades
    • ηp Max Speed – 0.91
    • Variable Pitch
      • Feathering and Reversible
  • Cruise SFC – 0.553
  • Installed Power – 1000 hp
  • Similar Engine - PT6A-60A

PT6A – Large – www.unitedtubrine.com

fuel considerations
Fuel Considerations
  • BioJet Fuel
    • First Created by University of North Dakota
    • Heating Value – 16,000 (btu/lb)
    • Specific Gravity – 0.87-0.89
    • TSFC – 0.553 *Approximate
    • Compatible with Current Turbines
    • Engine Heat Used to Prevent Gelling
slide23
Cost
  • Acquisition
    • $1.725 Million
    • Regression of Similar Aircraft
    • Based on:
      • Gross Weight
      • Aircraft Performance
  • DOC
    • $450 / Hour
    • Component Analysis
competing aircraft
Acquisition Cost

Baron G58 - $1.22 M

Adam A500 - $1.25 M

Pilatus PC-12 - $2.80 M

Concept 15 - $1.725

D.O.C./Hour

Baron G58 - $288

Adam A500 - $450

Pilatus PC-12 - $400

Concept 15 - $450

Competing Aircraft
production costs
Production Costs
  • Recurring Costs
  • Manufacturing
  • Materials
  •  Quality Control
  • Development Support
  • Engines
  • Avionics
  • Inventory
  • Non-Recurring Costs
  • Engineering/Design
  • Tooling
  • Flight Testing
  • DAPCA model (Raymer) used to estimate costs
    • Adjusted to current dollar value
    • Weighting used for composite components
    • Learning curve applied to various recurring
    • man-hours as production progresses
production costs26
Production Costs
  • Significant decrease in unit cost as
  • production increases
  • Acquisition cost of $1.725M; includes
  • 30% profit
  • Break even point ~ 210 aircraft
production cost breakdown
Production Cost Breakdown
  • Engineering, development, and testing decrease substantially in percentage as production increases
  • Manufacturing, materials costs begin to level off
summary
Summary
  • Concept 15
    • Design Requirements Achieved
      • Mission Requirements Met
      • Stable Aircraft (Positive Static Margin)
      • Aerodynamic Properties Possible
        • Need Wind Tunnel Verification (Better Approximations)
      • Competitive Cost Achieved