550 likes | 574 Views
An Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) for targeted advertising with high-intensity LED screens; covers 3 cities with continuous 18-hour operations. Engineering and customer requirements are prioritized for superior service delivery.
E N D
Team 5 Conceptual Design Review Robert Aungst Chris Chown Matthew Gray Adrian Mazzarella Brian Boyer Nick Gohn Charley Hancock Matt Schmitt
Outline of Presentation • Mission Summary • Payload Summary • Final Concept • Sizing Analysis • Aerodynamic Analysis • Performance Analysis • Engine / Power Analysis • Structures Analysis • Stability and Controls Analysis
Concept of Operations “Our mission is to provide an innovative advertising medium through the use of an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)” • Continuous area coverage of South Florida metropolitan areas and beaches for advertising purposes • Advertisements change based on location and circumstance • Targeted advertising for specific areas • e.g. advertising Best Buy near Circuit City locations • Large, fuselage mounted LED screens will deliver adverts • Business will be developed around this new technology
Concept of Operations Operations based at Sebring Regional Airport, serving 3 high population areas Continuous area coverage of city for 18 hrs (6am to 12am) 3 missions total with 6 hour loiter each Seven planes needed for 3 city operations with 1 spare Coverage area map:
Major Design Requirements • Customer Attributes • Advertisement visibility is paramount in order to meet customer’s needs • Must maintain a loiter speed which allows the public to retain the content of advertisements • For a successful venture, these two requirements must be clearly met in order to provide a superior service to the customer • Engineering Requirements • Screen dimensions: 7.42’ x 30’ (each) • Loiter Speed: 68 ktas • Loiter Endurance: 6 hrs
Payload Summary - Screen Two High Intensity LED Screens 7.42 ft X 30 ft Viewable up to 1500 ft 500 lbs installed (each) $120k cost (each) Power Consumption 3.9 kw/5.2 hp, each Driven by DC Generator Daytime Viewable Brightness: 6500 cd/m² Dynamic Display 60 fps video/text Weatherproof
Selected Aircraft Concept – “Walkaround” Diagram High wing configuration Single 755 hp turboprop, propeller T-tail empennage configuration Retractable tricycle landing gear configuration 7.42’ x 30’ advertising screen High aspect ratio, zero sweep wing
Aircraft Sizing Analysis • Sizing Prediction Methods • NASA Langley’s FLOPS • Flight Optimization System • AVID’s ACS • Team Written Matlab Code • Early Weight Predictions • Team written Matlab code • Empty weight - historical database trends • Final Weight Predictions • NASA’s FLOPS Software • Empty weight - FLOPS general aviation equations
Aircraft Sizing Analysis • Fixed Design Parameter Values
Aircraft Sizing Analysis • Tail Sizing Strategy • Historical values for tail volume coefficient • Raymer plus a “fudge” factor • Horizontal Tail Volume Coefficient: 0.975 • Vertical Tail Volume Coefficient: 0.1 • Engine Modeling • FLOPS turboprop model • Inputs • compressor pressure ratio • turbine inlet temperature • design shaft horsepower • design core airflow • propeller efficiency • propeller RPM
Carpet Plots • Carpet Plots Procedures • Design Wing Loading: 12.5 lbs/ft2 • Design Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0.24 • Increase and Decrease Wing Loading and Thrust-to-Weight Ratio by factors of approximately 20% and 40% • Determine from sizing code: • Gross Takeoff Weight • Landing Distance • Takeoff Distance
Carpet Plot Design Area W/S = 12.5 T/W = 0.24
Trade Studies • Using carpet plots • Design wing loading selected • Design thrust-to-weight ratio selected • Trade Studies • Gross Weight Variations from: • Payload weight • Cruise distance • Loiter time
Trade Studies - Payload Weights • 1 LED Screen vs. 2 LED Screens • Cruise Distance = 112 nm • 1 LED Screen • Payload Weight: 500 lbs • Gross Takeoff Weight: 3942 lbs • Empty Weight: 2368 lbs • Fuel Weight: 1008 lbs • 2 LED Screen • Payload Weight: 1000 lbs • Gross Takeoff Weight: 5431 lbs • Empty Weight: 2996 lbs • Fuel Weight: 1360 lbs
Trade Studies - Cruise Distance • 1 LED Screen vs. 2 LED Screens • Varying Cruise Distances
Trade Studies - Loiter Length • 1 LED Screen vs. 2 LED Screens • Varying Loiter Lengths
Aircraft Description – 3-view 10 ft 5 ft 78 ft 3 ft 6 ft 13 ft 42 ft
Aircraft Description - Internal Layout 42 ft. Generator RearLanding Gear Nose Landing Gear (beneath engine) Tail Camera Screen Avionics Engine Fuel 13 ft Nose Camera Screen Ballistic Recovery System
Nose Gear: 4 ft. from the nose Center of plane Retracts to the rear 3.25 ft. long strut .1 ft diameter Oleopneumatic shock-strut with drag brace 2 Type VII tires (redundancy) .4 ft width .75 ft radius 100 psi Rated at 174 kts Main Gear: 22 ft. from the nose Edges of the fuselage Retract to the rear 5.75 ft. long struts .14 ft diameter Oleopneumatic shock-struts with drag braces Type VII tires .4 ft width .75 ft radius 225 psi Rated at 217 kts Aircraft Description - Retractable Tricycle Landing Gear
Aircraft Description - Landing Gear Design Considerations • No tail strike on landing (ground clearance > 1.2 ft) • 2 ft ground clearance • Propeller ground clearance (> .84 ft) • 2 ft ground clearance • Tipback prevention (> 15˚) • Angle of 19˚ off vertical from main gear to center of gravity • Overturn prevention (< 63˚) • Overturn angle 45˚ • Optimal weight sharing (8-15% by nose) • Nose gear carries 10.4% • Main gear retraction • Thin fairing opens at top of screen • Screen assembled in modules
Aerodynamic Design • Wing design summary • Wing details • Airfoil selection and performance characteristics • Parasite drag build-up • Aircraft drag polars • Other aerodynamic considerations
Aerodynamic Design – Wing Spanwise Twist Distribution • Wing twist designed: • to achieve a minimum induced drag spanwise lift distribution • to provide desirable stall characteristics • Preliminary twist distribution derived using lifting-line theory
Aerodynamic Design – Wing Spanwise Thickness Distribution • Thickness distribution designed: • to minimize the form drag of the wing • to provide potential weight savings • Preliminary thickness distribution based on current aircraft designs
Aerodynamic Design - Airfoil Selection - Wing • Wing Requirements • Promotes laminar flow • Delays transition to turbulent flow • In order to accomplish this, the NACA 64-912,10,08 airfoil was chosen for the different thicknesses required NACA 64-912 Drag Polar & Lift-curve slope for NACA 64-912
Aerodynamic Design - Airfoil Selection - Tail • Vertical Tail • Requires a symmetric airfoil to prevent side forces • Horizontal Tail • Must allow for stability of aircraft Chose NACA 0012 for both vertical and horizontal tail • By using the same characteristic airfoil for both, it will reduce manufacturing costs • It meets the symmetry requirements • A 12% thickness, this allows structural considerations NACA 0012
Aerodynamic Design – Parasite Drag Build-up • Two methods were used to predict parasite drag: • Component build-up method* • FLOPS (Flight Optimization System) breakdown • Data from both predictions were analyzed and compared, giving a parasite drag prediction *Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach; D.P. Raymer; 2006.
Aerodynamic Design – Parasite Drag Build-up • Parasite drag build-up [clean configuration]:
Aerodynamic Design – Parasite Drag Build-up • Parasite drag breakdown [clean configuration]:
Aerodynamic Design – Drag Polars • Aircraft drag polar [clean configuration]:
Aerodynamic Design – Drag Polars • Aircraft drag polar [dirty configuration]:
Aerodynamic Design – Other Considerations • Winglets • Proposed to add winglets to reduce the wing induced drag • Applicable to this aircraft due to the design mission characteristics: • Long endurance • Low design flight speed. • Winglets increase the effective aspect ratio – sizing code uses the effective aspect ratio • No detailed design carried out • Further detailed aerodynamic design would incorporate winglet design • High-lift devices • With an approach speed of 67 keas, it was felt that high-lift devices, at this stage of the design, were not needed
Performance • Specific excess power • Power available and required • Flight envelope • V-n diagram • Performance summary
Performance – Specific Excess Power • Specific excess power, at maximum gross take-off weight:
Performance – Power Available and Power Required • Power available and power required, at maximum gross take-off weight:
Performance – Flight Envelope • Flight envelope, at maximum gross take-off weight:
Performance – V-n Diagram • V-n diagram (maneuver loads), at maximum gross take-off weight:
Performance – Turn Performance • Turn radius, at maximum gross take-off weight:
Performance – Turn Performance • Time to turn 180° at maximum gross take-off weight:
Performance – Performance Summary Operating Speeds *Approach speed based on 1.3*Vs1-g **Note: best range speed is below the stall speed
Performance – Performance Summary Other ***Take-off and landing distances based on standard sea-level conditions, temperature STD +30F ****Service ceiling based on the FAR requirement of a climb rate of 100 fpm for propeller aircraft
Propulsion System – Engine and Propeller • Power: 776 shp (S.L. static) • SFC: .577 lb/hr/hp @ max power • Cost: $100k-$150k • Dry Weight: 355 lbs • Installed Weight: 500 lbs • Prop Shaft Speed: 2000 RPM • Propeller • Hartzell HC-B3TN-5 • Matched to TPE-331 • 3-Blade, Variable Pitch • Constant Speed, Feathering • Steel Hub, Aluminum Blades • Tip Mach: 0.82 • J: 0.90 AF: 99.8 • η: 0.785 Cp: 0.114 • Honeywell TPE-331-5 Turboprop
Power Budget • Power Source • Up to 50 hp extracted from engine • D.C. generator attached to accessory gearbox • Power Requirements • LED Screens • 2 @ 5.2 hp = 10.4 hp • MicroPilot MP-Day/Nightview Cameras • 2 @ 6 watts = 0.02 hp • Avionics Components • Communications (VHF/UHF), Navigation (GPS), Flight Control, Telemetry, Video • Estimated @ 20 kW = 26.8 hp • ~37 hp used, 13 hp reserve available
Structure - Internal Structural Layout Key: Stringer: Rib: Spar: 13 ft 1.88 ft Ribs 42 ft Front Spar 2.5 ft 2.5 ft 1.88 ft 3.13 ft Main Spar Rear Spar Stringers 78 ft 1.25 ft
Structure - Aircraft Material Selection • Skin (Aramid/Epoxy): 49% weight savings, same modulus, 10x the ultimate strength • High strength resists FOD damage • Stringers (Boron/Aluminum): Same weight, but 3x modulus increases fuselage rigidity • Inhibits LED screen damage from fuselage strain • Spars (Boron/Aluminum): Same weight, but 3x modulus increases wing rigidity • Large span would otherwise exhibit wing bending; increases aerodynamic efficiency • Ribs (Carbon/Epoxy): 43% weight savings, 2x stiffer inhibit wing twist • High wing-twist resistance increases aerodynamic efficiency and endurance
Stability and Control- Weight Summary • Aircraft and Component Weights • FLOPS sizing code • FLOPS is widely used for aircraft of this size • The results, overall, agree with earlier sizing studies
Stability and Control – Static Margin • Static Margin • From internal layout and weight summary • Fuel tank located near the c.g. • Very little c.g. travel as fuel is burned • Static margin remains constant throughout mission 42 ft. 9 in 19.95 ft 13 ft Datum
Cost • Aircraft development and maintenance costs estimated from FLOPS cost model • Production includes 7 complete aircraft with 2 spare engines • Payroll assumes 21 person staff, with a rotation of 12 operators • Revenue model based on servicing 3 cities, 18 hours per day, 50 weeks per year