1 / 30

Heavy Lift Cargo Plane

Heavy Lift Cargo Plane. December 9 th , 2004. Group #1 Matthew Chin, Aaron Dickerson Brett J. Ulrich, Tzvee Wood Advisor: Professor Siva Thangam. Overview. SAE Aero Design Rules Conceptual Design Design Matrix Materials Budget Boom Wing Selection Previous Designs Features

libra
Download Presentation

Heavy Lift Cargo Plane

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Heavy Lift Cargo Plane December 9th, 2004 Group #1 Matthew Chin, Aaron Dickerson Brett J. Ulrich, Tzvee Wood Advisor: Professor Siva Thangam

  2. Overview • SAE Aero Design Rules • Conceptual Design • Design Matrix • Materials • Budget • Boom • Wing Selection • Previous Designs • Features • Landing Gear • FEM Analysis • EES Calculations • Tail Plane Calculations • Team Dynamics & Conclusion

  3. Design Concepts & Materials Selection

  4. SAE Aero Design Rules • For Regular Class: • Wing Span Limit – maximum width of 60 inches • Payload Bay Limit – 5” x 6” x 8” • Engine Requirements single, unmodified O.S. 0.61FX with E-4010 Muffler • Take off time limited to a max of 5 minutes • Maximum takeoff distance of 200 ft and landing distance of 400 ft • Aero East Competition • Date: April 8–10 • Location: Orlando, Florida

  5. Conceptual Design (recap) • Reviewed past design entries • Considered: • Flying wing • Monoplane • Bi-plane • Two sequential wings • Design alternatives were evaluated for performance, feasibility, and cost.

  6. Design Decision Matrix

  7. Materials • Balsa wood • Ease of use • Used in rib manufacture • Fuselage • Plywood • Stronger than balsa wood • Used in construction for wing • Will reinforce dihedral design • Carbon fiber • Composite material • Stronger and lighter than other metals • Reinforce wings with rods • Aluminum • Engine bracket • Landing Gear • Thermal Monocot • Reduce parasitic losses on wings

  8. Projected Budget

  9. Wing Selection & Boom Design

  10. Previous Wing Selection • Selected for competition in: • 2000: Eppler 211 • 2001: Eppler 423 • 2002: OAF 102 • 2003: Selig 1223 • Our selection: • Eppler 423 • High coefficient of lift

  11. Wing Features • Eppler 423 - a subsonic high lift airfoil • Camber 0.0992 • Trailing edge angle 7.523° From XFOIL • Thickness 0.1252 • Leading edge radius 0.0265 Based on unit Chord • Dihedral • Angle of 3.5° • 2” at ends (http://www.colorado-research.com/~gourlay/dome/hiFreq/) • Horner Plate • ½” larger than thickness in one direction • 10% increase to the area of rib (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/Tip_Plates/m_2282825/tm.htm)

  12. Symmetric model for FEM analysis 22.5 lb on lower surface fixed face Main Wing • Previous structural weakness • Model currently too complex for COSMOS to mesh

  13. Boom • Balsa sheets versus Carbon Fiber rods Chose Balsa sheets from reasons stated above • Taper • More Aerodynamic • Less Mass • Sleek design

  14. FEM Analysis

  15. Landing Gear &Engine Mount

  16. Landing Gear • Weakness in past years – strength is a priority • Tricycle design: focus on main rear wheels • Aluminum 6061 – Parabolic spring (actually elliptical in shape) http://www.ticonsole.nl/parts/springs/what.htm

  17. Engine/Muffler 23.6 oz Engine Mounting • Aluminum 6061 • Mount for engine, secures to front face of fuselage (backing plate to be used with through bolts)

  18. EES Takeoff Calculations • Method derived from fluid mechanics text and Nicolai’s ‘white paper’ • Calculates take-off distance by two methods → yielding similar results • Key Inputs • Weight (max) = 45lb • Fuselage length = 15” • Fuselage width = 6.5” • Boom length = 34” • Wingspan = 60” • Wing AR = 3 • Key Outputs • Vtakeoff≈ 39 mph • Takeoff distance ≈ 60’ • Other Outputs (sample) • Thrust (@Vtakeoff) ≈ 45 lb • Drag ≈ 5 lb • Various Reynolds numbers • Area projected

  19. Tail Plane Calculations

  20. Tail Plane Function • Aircraft control • Stabilize aircraft pitch • Small tail plane results in instability • Extra large tail plane increases drag

  21. Tail Plane Size • Offsets all moments generated in flight • Lift/Drag forces on primary airfoil • Pitching moment of primary airfoil about its aerodynamic center • Pitching moment of airflow around fuselage • Pitching moment of tailplane • Lift/Drag forces on tail plane • Tail drag force and pitching moment are negligible

  22. Tail Plane Size • Analysis generalized • Moments all taken about center of gravity • Lift/Drag forces resolved to act normal/parallel to airplane reference line • Moments all converted to “coefficient” form M / qcSW = CM

  23. Tail Plane Size • Profili Software utilized for lift/drag/moment coefficients • Lift coefficient of primary airfoil (Eppler 423) determined as a function of attack angle • CD = f(CL) • CM = f(α) ≈ -0.2

  24. Tail Plane Size • Downwash from primary foil effects tailplane (NACA 0012) • Lift coefficients determined with Profili • Pitching moment of the fuselage depended upon: • Change in airfoil pitching moment with respect to angle of attack • Change in lift coefficient with respect to angle of attack • Fuselage “fineness ratio”

  25. Tail Plane Size • Mathematical model for tail plane size entered into EES • Final tail plane minimum planform area: 183.4 in2 • Rule of thumb: Tail area is 15-20% of wing area • Wing is 1200 in2

  26. The Wrap Up

  27. Final Design Various Unused Features Chosen Design

  28. Team Dynamics • Learned how difficult team work can be • In fighting over who was in charge often resulted in wasting of time • Personality conflicts occasionally made working environment difficult • Ultimately produced quality work

  29. Concluding Remarks • Selected foils: • Main Wing: Eppler 423 • Tail Wing: NACA 0012 • Preliminary calculations estimate a lifting capacity of 30 lbs • Plane ready for construction • Expect minor refinements over the coming weeks subject to completion of add’l FEA tests

  30. Your Feedback is Appreciated Group #1 Matthew Chin, Aaron Dickerson Brett J. Ulrich, Tzvee Wood Advisor: Professor Siva Thangam

More Related