Download
harp high altitude reconnaissance platform design proposal n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
HARP - High Altitude Reconnaissance Platform Design Proposal PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
HARP - High Altitude Reconnaissance Platform Design Proposal

HARP - High Altitude Reconnaissance Platform Design Proposal

180 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

HARP - High Altitude Reconnaissance Platform Design Proposal

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

  1. HARP - High Altitude Reconnaissance Platform Design Proposal Steven H. Christenson –Team Lead Ceazar C. Javellana III Marcus A. Artates Dr. James D. Lang, Project Advisor Dr. Leland M. Nicolai, Project Sponsor Dr. Paul A. Wieselmann, Project Sponsor

  2. PresentationOverview -Define Requirements -Design Process and Assumptions -Aircraft Configuration/Sizing -Weight Breakdown -Mission Analysis and Compliance -Aerodynamics -Performance -Propulsion -Stability and Control -Materials and Structure -Cost Estimations -Future Work -References and Acknowledgements

  3. Requirements Provide 24/7 ISR Coverage with 2 Aircraft 2000 nm Radius for ISR Mission 10500 nm Ferry Flight 6963 lb Payload (Installed Weight) -(4) X Band Radar Arrays – 3.3 x 6.1 ft -(2) UHF Radar Arrays – 4.9 x 40.6 ft Minimize Take-off Weight and Life Cycle Cost

  4. Derived Requirements for 24/7 Coverage with 2 Aircraft Endurance TOS Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit TOS TA TA Aircraft 1 TA Transit Transit Transit TOS Transit Aircraft 2 TOS Mission Endurance 2*(One-Way Transit) + Time on Station Time on Station 2*(One-Way Transit) + Turnaround Time

  5. ISR Mission Cruise Out 2000 nm Cruise Back 2000 nm 55000 ft Loiter 16 Hours (TOS) Descend to Sea Level Climb to Cruise Altitude Sea Level Loiter for 30 min 2000 nm Distance (nm)

  6. Max Distance Ferry Mission Cruise 10500 nm 55000 ft Descend to Sea Level Climb to Cruise Altitude Sea Level Loiter for 30 min Distance (nm) 10500 nm

  7. Design Process Study Mission Requirements -Configuration Assumptions Made/Refined to Meet Mission Requirements- Fuel)aval> Fuel)reqd Size Wing Calculate Component Weights Calculate Fuel Fractions Determine Fuel Required for Mission Assume Wto and W/S Yes/No Determine Fuel Available -Assumptions Made/Refined- Refine Aerodynamic Parameters Size Control Surfaces/Tail Calculate Drag Determine Performance Capabilities AR, Taper, Sweep Fuselage Sizing and Shape Estimate Tail Size Refine Wto and W/S Estimates Aerodynamics Size Engine Performance Mission Requirements Met? Refine Wto and W/S Optimize Design Yes/No

  8. Aircraft Configuration Design Analysis Based on the Following Assumptions: -L/D)max,wing = 35 for 0 deg Sweep, 20 AR, 60% Laminar Flow Lockheed Martin Aerodynamic Data -2250 lb Thrust, .55 TSFC for 2015 Advanced Technology Turbofan Engine at Full Power and 55000 ft

  9. Aircraft Configuration Wto = 50000 lb W/S = 60 lb/ft^2 Wing Area = 833 ft^2 Wing Span = 129 ft Wing Sweep = 0 deg Aspect Ratio = 20

  10. Radar Geometry X Band Radar (4) -3.3 x 6.1 ft -Azimuth Field of Regard (FOR) +/- 70 degrees -Located to give 360 Degree Coverage UHF Radar (2) -4.9 x 40.6 ft -Azimuth FOR +/- 70 degrees -Located to View Out Each Side

  11. Horizon Distance 5.17 deg 250 nm LOS 55000 ft Horizon Design Array Angles for Desired Footprint

  12. Aircraft Configuration Wing Area = 833 ft^2 Wing Span = 129 ft Wing Sweep = 0 deg Aspect Ratio = 20 Fuselage Length = 62 ft Height = 6 ft Width = 10 ft

  13. Aircraft Configuration

  14. Aircraft Configuration Center of Gravity & Aerodynamic Center Wing Fuel Tank

  15. Weight Fractions -ISR • Start up/Take-Off .970 • Climb to Cruise Alt .950 • Cruise Out .902 • Loiter on Station .754 • Loiter Fuel 10219 lb • Maneuvering Fuel 671 lb • Cruise Back .902 • Descend to SL 1.00 • Loiter 20 min .994 Take-Off Weight 50000 lb Fuel Weight 23874 lb Fuel Fraction .48 Fuel Volume 3511 gal (1) 2015 Technology Turbofan Engine SLS Thrust = 8000 lb SLS TSFC = .40 T/W = .16 -Cruise at .943*L/D)max -Loiter at L/D)max

  16. ISR Mission Compliance -Two Aircraft Coverage- Mission Endurance 2*(One-Way Transit) + Time on Station = 2*(5.52) + 16.2 hr = 28.4 hr Time on Station 2*(One-Way Transit) + Turnaround Time = 12.2 hr + 4 hr = 16.2 hr -2000 nm Range- Cl = .628 L/D = 29.72 Mach .6 and 55000 ft -16 Hour TOS- Cl = .864 L/D)max = 31.52 Mach .6 and 55000 ft Total Mission Fuel Required: 23874 lb = 3511 gal

  17. Weight Fractions - Ferry • Start up/Take-Off .970 • Climb to Cruise Alt .950 • Cruise 10500 nm .567 • Descend to SL 1.00 • Loiter 20 min .994 Take-Off Weight 50000 lb Fuel Weight 24685 lb Fuel Fraction .49 Fuel Volume 3630 gal Design Pushed by 10500 nm Ferry Flight Approx 800 lb Additional Fuel Required

  18. Aerodynamics Aspect Ratio = 20 Span = 129 ft Wing Sweep = 0 deg e = .9 t/c = .15 K = .01768 Taper Ratio = .50 MAC = 6.7 ft Croot = 8.6 ft Ctip = 4.3 ft Airfoil: Modified Lockheed Martin Sensorcraft Wing15% to Provide 60% Laminar Flow

  19. Aerodynamics L/D)max,wing = 35 Lockheed Martin Aerodynamics Data Cdo)wing = .00817 Referenced to Sref Cdo)fuselage = .00369 Referenced to Sref Cdo)tail = .00121 Referenced to Sref Cdo)aircraft = .01393Calculated with Interference Effects L/D)max,aircraft = 31.52 From L/D vs Cl Plot

  20. Aerodynamics Cl = .864 for L/D)max and Minimum Drag Clalpha = 6.9 rad-1 = .12 deg-1 at Mach .6 Stall Velocity Based on Cl)maxof 2.0 Candidate High Lift Devices -Mission Adaptive Wing (MAW) -Trailing Edge Flaps

  21. Aerodynamics Fuselage Sized to Hold Radar Arrays Length = 62 ft Depth = 6 ft Width = 10 ft Fineness Ratio = 6.2 Volume = 2922 ft^3 Wetted Area = 1067 ft^2 Max Cross Sectional Area = 47 ft^2

  22. Aerodynamics L/D)max = 31.52

  23. Aerodynamics

  24. Aerodynamics MDD, Drag Divergent Mach Number -Insufficient Data in References to Accurately Calculate MDD -Concern that at Cruise Velocity and Altitude (M .6 @ 55000 ft) Airfoil is Near MDD -Supercritical Wing

  25. Performance Limit Load Factor 1.25 Ultimate Load Factor 1.88 Turn Load Factor 1.15 Maneuvering Turn Rate 1.8 deg/s Dynamic Pres Limit 450 lb/ft^2 Stall Velocity 159 ft/s Take-Off Velocity 191 ft/s Take-Off Distance 5000 ft Landing Distance 4000 ft Braking Acceleration –7 ft/s^2

  26. Performance

  27. Performance

  28. Performance

  29. Propulsion 2015 Technology Turbofan Engine Moderate Bypass Ratio 8000 lb Thrust (Sea Level Static) .40 TSFC (Sea Level Static) Dimensions: Length 115 in (9.6 ft) Diameter 41 in (3.4 ft) Engine Weight: 1600 lb System Weight: 3100 lb -Pitot Inlet, 10 ft^2 Capture Area -Fixed Convergent Nozzle, 6 ft^2 Exit Area

  30. Propulsion

  31. Propulsion

  32. Propulsion

  33. Auxiliary Power Required Power 128 kW Power Available from Engine 70 kW = .061*Talt Additional Power Required 58 kW APU – Continental L/TSIO-360 Total Weight 1304 lb APU Fuel Weight 595 lb Total Weight 1899 lb

  34. Auxiliary Power Engine Excess Power kW = .061*Talt Additional Thrust 957 lb Additional Fuel 8562 lb (T-D)*V = Power Additional Thrust 58 lb Additional Fuel 523 lb Average Additional Fuel 4542 lb

  35. Weight Build-up Fuselage 3415 lb Wing 4928 lb Control Surface(s) 2508 lb Tail 297 lb Landing Gear 1677 lb Propulsion System 3100 lb Flight Systems 460 lb Fuel System/Tanks 496 lb Hydraulic System 172 lb Electrical System 849 lb Air Cond/Anti-ice Sys 794 lb Payload (Installed) 6963 lb Take-Off Weight 50000 lb Empty Weight 18697 lb Weight with Payload 25660 lb Fuel Weight Available 24340 lb Fuel Fraction .49 Fuel Volume 3579 gal -Fuselage and Landing Gear Weight Reduced by 15% and 5%, respectively, for 2015 Technology Target Factors

  36. Stability and Control Center of Gravity and Fuel Schedule

  37. Stability and Control Static Margin (SM) Summary

  38. Stability and Control Cmo = .0681

  39. Stability and Control Flaps Area = 38.0 ft^2 each MAC = 2.15 ft Span = 17.7 ft Ailerons Area = 37.9 ft^2 each MAC = 1.47 ft Span = 25.8 ft Flap Chord: 25% Wing Chord at Root Flap Span: 27% of Wing Span Aileron Chord: 22% of Wing MAC Aileron Span: 40% of Wing Span Total Control Surface Area: 152 ft^2

  40. Stability and Control V-Tail Cvt = .0145 Svt = 55.7 ft^2 Cht = .34 Sht = 67.7 ft^2 42 deg from Vertical Rudder Area = 18.6 ft^2 = (1/3)Svt

  41. Materials and Structure Material Selection Carbon Fiber -Wings -Control Surfaces -Fuselage Fiberglass -Array Panels Structural Concept Semi-Monocoque Fuselage Structure Carbon Fiber Wing Box, Spars and Landing Gear Struts

  42. Materials and Structure

  43. Materials and Structure

  44. Materials and Structure

  45. Materials and Structure Mass Moments of Inertia Based on Historical Data Ixx = 2.89E3 slug-ft^2 Iyy = 1.93E5 slug-ft^2 Izz = 6.86E5 slug-ft^2

  46. Cost Estimations Engineering Hours, Tooling Hours, Manufacturing Hours and Manufacturing Material Costs Based on Historical Data and: -Number of Aircraft Produced -Aircraft Take-off Gross Weight -Maximum Velocity Flight Test Costs Based on Historical Data and: -Number of Flight Test Aircraft -Aircraft Take-off Gross Weight -Maximum Velocity Quality Control Hours Based on Historical Data and: -Manufacturing Hours Development Support Cost Based on Historical Data and: -Aircraft Take-off Gross Weight -Maximum Velocity Engine and Avionics Cost Provided By: -Lockheed Martin

  47. Cost Estimations Aircraft to be Procured: 100 Flight Test Aircraft: 6 Hours Engineering 7,568,054 Tooling 4,483,622 Manufacturing 13,472,465 Quality Control 1,791,838 Labor Rates Adjusted to 1999 Dollars Engineering $85 Tooling $88 Manufacturing $73 Quality Control $81 Costs Development Support 88,831,854 Flight Test 57,056,356 Manufacturing Materials 260,106,607 Engine 206,700,000 Avionics 1,590,000,000 Estimated RDT&E + Flyaway Cost = $4,470,179,979 44. 7 Million / Aircraft

  48. Future Study System Configuration -Tailor Fuselage Shape to Minimize Flow Separation -Analyze Control and High Lift Concepts Mission Adaptive Wing (MAW) -Analyze Desired Radar Footprint for Exact Array Orientation -Wing Dihedral -Low Observables -Possible Requirement for Satellite Antenna

  49. Future Study Performance -Refine Installed Thrust Data -Refine Inlet/Nozzle Design Cost -Utilize VaRTM Technology -Incorporate High Strength Composites to Replace Traditional Metal Components

  50. References and Acknowledgements References: Fundamentals of Aircraft Design, Nicolai, L.M., Revised 1984 Lockheed Martin Aerodynamic Data, Nicolai, L.M. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, Raymer, D.P., Third Edition Acknowledgements: Dr. James D. Lang, Project Advisor Dr. Leland M. Nicolai, Project Sponsor Dr. Paul A. Wieselmann, Project Sponsor