Conceptual Design Review Presentation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Conceptual Design Review Presentation PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Conceptual Design Review Presentation

play fullscreen
1 / 82
Conceptual Design Review Presentation
169 Views
Download Presentation
ashley
Download Presentation

Conceptual Design Review Presentation

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Conceptual Design Review Presentation

    Joe Appel Todd Beeby Julie Douglas KonradHabina Katie Irgens Jon Linsenmann David Lynch Dustin Truesdell
  2. Outline Mission Statement Major Design Requirements Selected Aircraft Concept Results of Aircraft Sizing Major Design Tradeoffs Aircraft Description Aerodynamic Design Details Performance Propulsion Structures Weights and Balance Stability and Control Noise Cost Summary
  3. Mission Statement Design an Environmentally Responsible Aircraft (ERA) that lowers noise, minimizes emissions, and reduces fuel burn Utilize new technology to develop a competitive medium-size aircraft that meets the demands of transportation for continental market Deliver a business plan focused on capitalizing on growing markets Submit final design to NASA ERA College Student Challenge
  4. Major Design Requirements NASA ERA Goals Large twin aisle reference configuration = Boeing 777-200LR
  5. Major Design Requirements Market Goals 200 passengers Intra - Continental Range 3200 Nautical Miles Operability Maintenance Turnaround time Production and operating costs
  6. Selected Aircraft Concept

  7. Selected Aircraft Concept
  8. Walk Around T-Tail for Stability High Bypass Ratio Geared Turbofan Engines High Aspect Ratio, High Wing Passenger Capacity for 200 Pax: 24 Bus., 182 Econ. Composite Materials Fiber Laminate Core for Fuselage Structures
  9. Walk Around Raked winglets Hybrid Laminar Flow Technology on wing surfaces Cargo Capacity for 32 LD3 Containers Riblets Wheel tug Chevrons, Soft Vanes & Scarf Inlets
  10. Design Features Active Hybrid Laminar Flow Control laminar flow on wing Fuel savings up to 10% Riblets In past have reduced drag by 8% Reduce fuel consumption by 3% Wheel Tug Expected fuel savings of 13-21 lbs/min of taxi time Reduce foreign object damage (increased turbine efficiency=0.5-1.5% fuel savings)
  11. Design Features Chevrons Reduce noise by 4dB Soft Vanes Reduce noise by 1 dB Landing Gear Fairings Reduce approach noise by 3dB GTF Reduce noise by up to 20dB Reduce Nox emissions by 50% below CAEP 6
  12. Design Parameters Design Parameters
  13. Aircraft Sizing

  14. Description of Sizing Code MATLAB iteration code to match gross weight
  15. Modeling Assumptions and Approaches -Calibration factors
  16. Sizing Approach Empty Weight Statistical equations for components from Raymer Text Weights added to Payload & Fuel to estimate TOGW If fuel weight isn’t sufficient, weights adjusted (iteration) Fuel Weight Segment fuel fractions using Range and Endurance eqns Drag Component drag build-up Parasite, for each exposed aircraft component Induced, for wing and tail surfaces Wave, neglected for cruse Mach ~ 0.75
  17. Tail Sizing Relate wing aspects to tail Wing yaw moments countered by wing span Pitching moments counted by wing mean chord Correlate using volume coefficients Equations 6.28 & 6.29 from Raymer
  18. Sizing Approach Engine Modeling Engine sim1.7 used to model engines Code calibrated to CF6 series engine (<5% error) CF6 features calibrated to direct drive with geared turbofan features and efficiencies added Used the ratio of thrust available and thrust required to find a scale factor (SF = .92) Integrated this scale factor to scale down engine weight, and length and diameter Also used this scale factor to scale thrust and SFC for engines
  19. Modeling Assumptions and Approaches -Mission Modeling - Economic mission, 1000 nmi, best cruise efficiency - Breguet, Endurance, and Historical eqns used for fuel fraction -Fixed Design Parameters
  20. Validation and Calibration Validation using similar a/c: Boeing 757-200 & 767-200ER 757-200 validated for weight & drag components TOGW = 255000 lb, OEW = 127000 lb, Wfuel = 74510 lb 21
  21. Design Trade-offs

  22. Two Concepts Concept 1: Concept 2 (V∞):
  23. Carpet plots: Concept 1
  24. Carpet plots: Concept 1
  25. Carpet plots: Concept 1
  26. Carpet plots: Concept 2 (V∞)
  27. Carpet plots: Concept 2 (V∞)
  28. Carpet plots: Concept 2 (V∞)
  29. Carpet Plots-Results
  30. Other trade-offs Safety Issues Double Bubble Rear Mounted Engines Tip over Water landing Manufacturing Issues Double Bubble High Aspect Ratio Wing
  31. Aircraft Description

  32. Free Stream Concept
  33. Exterior Dimensions 17.8’ 138’ 151’ 17.5’
  34. Free Stream: Interior 16’4” 1’11” 16’4” 5’10” 17’8”
  35. Free Stream: Interior Business Class 2-2-2 layout 20” seats 19” aisles
  36. Free Stream: Interior Economy Class 2-3-2 layout 18” seats 19” aisles
  37. Free Stream: Interior Inclusive Tour/High Density 2-4-2 layout 16” seats 17” aisles
  38. Free Stream: LOPA
  39. Free Stream: CARGO Cargo Hold Configuration Space Allocation for Landing Gear Capacity for 28 LD3 Containers
  40. Free Stream: CARGO
  41. Aerodynamic Design

  42. Airfoil Selection Airfoil selection t/c = 12% Max camber = 0.04 Max camber location = 0.5 Cp Distribution Airfoil
  43. Aerodynamic Design Details/ Justification High lift devices No slats due to laminar flow Double slotted fowler flaps for maximum lift
  44. Drag Polar 45
  45. Aerodynamic Design Details/ Justification Drag Build-up Drag split into components for fuselage, wing, tail, landing gear, and nacelle For each component the parasite and induced drag was calculated Wave drag neglected due to drag divergence estimated to be larger than cruise mach number
  46. Performance

  47. Performance V-n Diagram Max load factor at cruise = 2.47 Min load factor = -1 Cruise Velocity at 741 ft/sec
  48. Engine Description

  49. Propulsion Geared Turbo Fan (31,500 lbf SLS) 15% fuel savings, 8% weight penalty wrt DD Inlet Diameter-80 in. Bypass Ratio-10:1 Fan Compression ratio-1.4:1 Compressor pressure ratio-22:1 Turbine max temperature-2500 R Dry weight-4800 lbs Assumed efficiencies-inlet pressure recovery(.99), fan(.85),compressor(.88), burner (1.0),turbine (.90),nozzle(.98) Secondary airflow bleed (oil, hydraulic, and environmental control systems)-3% of mass flow rate http://www.aric.or.kr/trend/history/images/propellant/pw_geared_turbofan.jpg
  50. Propulsion
  51. Structural Design

  52. Structures Major Load Paths
  53. Structures Major Load Paths Tension Compression
  54. Structures Wing Fuselage Intersection Shear = 2.5E6 lbf Moment = -7.5E7 lbf Deflection = -1.2ft
  55. Structures Wing Fuselage Intersection Wing box Combines best of two material systems Metal: isotropy, plasticity, shear, bending, impact, damage Composite: fatigue, tensile strength AHS Concept – CentrAL with Glare2 FML Core and three layers of 1.4mm thick 2024-T3 sheets 40% higher direction strength, and 20% weight savings (based off of AL 2024 T-3) Upper wing: Metallic Design with advanced alloys (Al-Li 2099) Ribs: Single piece of machined rib from advanced alloy plate or integral extrusion Spars: Multi-piece spars
  56. Materials Pros: Weight reduction Up to 20% empty weight production compared to aluminum High corrosion resistance Resistance to damage from fatigue Overall reduction in operating cost Cons: High Cost Labor Intensive Hard to fabricate http://www.appropedia.org/File:Composites01.jpg
  57. Weights and Balance

  58. Weights and Balance Weight statement Empty weight prediction method Component weight breakdown
  59. Center of Gravity & Static Margin The Center of Gravity 58.8” from the nose Aerodynamic Center was found to be 67.2” from nose Static Margin is calculuted to be -8.4”
  60. Landing Gear

  61. Landing Gear High Wing concept called for an atypical landing gear configuration Final design allows landing gear to extend 5 feet below belly of airplane Main gear stance is 19 feet
  62. Landing Gear
  63. Landing Gear
  64. Landing Gear
  65. Landing Gear
  66. Noise

  67. Reducing Noise Geared Turbo Fan Engine Potential Noise Reduction of 20 dB Chevrons Soft Vanes Scarf Inlets Landing Gear Fairings
  68. Approach to Noise Engines are primary source of noise Exterior (community noise) measured at 3 locations Takeoff Sideline Approach http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/noise/noise.html
  69. Determining Noise Stage 3 requirements based on TOGW Stage 4 requirements: -10dB cumulative below stage 3 Our goal: -42dB cumulative below stage 4
  70. Determining Noise Using baseline engine (CF-6), adjust for thrust Adjust for number of engines Adjust for distance (takeoff and sideline) Adjust throttle setting Correction factor for EPN dB Airframe noise Account for GTF Account for other technologies
  71. Noise Estimates GTF reduces noise by 15 dB Our Goal: 237 EPN dB
  72. Cost Prediction

  73. Cost Used the RAND DAPCA VI Model to model the RDT&E and production cost (Millions) Engineering, Tooling, Manufacturing, Materials, Flight Test, Quality Control, Development, and production cost Used Liebeck’s Method to model the variable costs of the airplane (Millions per year) Fuel Cost, Flight Crew Cost, Maintenance Costs, Landing Fees, Depreciation, Interest, and Insurance
  74. Cost Market Plan estimated 200 new planes to be built in the first five years Break Even price met after 220 airplanes are sold for the purchase price Assumptions: Depreciation of 10% per year 4 flight test aircrafts 20% manufacturing cost increase for composites 4000 flight hours per year 625 trips per year
  75. Cost Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Fixed Cost for Aircraft
  76. Cost Operating and Maint. Costs Variable Costs per year
  77. Summary

  78. Summary of Final Design ~200 Pax Capacity Max. Range of 3200nmi Safer Design Easier to manufacture Faster turnaround time
  79. Compliance Matrix Determined the Landing and Takeoff field lengths then compared to thresholds and targets values. Cruise efficiency found after adding engine to sizing code.
  80. Next Steps Stability and Control Drag polars Secondary systems integration Produce written report Submit to NASA Competition
  81. On a scale of one to ten,