Transcript Group 13 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane

Group 13
Heavy Lift Cargo Plane
Stephen McNulty
Richard-Marc Hernandez
Jessica Pisano
Yoosuk Kee
Chi Yan
Project Advisor: Siva Thangam
Overview
Objectives
Schedule/Progress
Design Concepts and Analysis




Airfoil
Fuselage
Tail
Landing Gear
End of Semester Deliverables
Next Semester Goals
Objectives
Competition Specs are not posted for 2004
competition
The plane meets the specifications of the 2004
SAE Aero Design East/West competition
To finish the design of the plane by December
and begin construction and testing in January
To compete well at competition and improve
Stevens reputation
For the team to improve and expand their
knowledge of the design and construction of
airplanes
Schedule
Journal/Progress
Researched airfoil computer analysis
software
Calculations for Airfoil

Competition rules keep changing and are no
longer posted on website
Stereo-lithography Lab
Landing Gear models and analysis
Fuselage Design and Calculations
Tail Design
Airfoil
Low camber, low drag,
high speed, thin wing
Deep camber, high lift,
low peed, thick wing
Deep camber, high lift,
low speed, thin wing
Low lift, high drag, reflex
trailing edge
Symmetrical (cambered
top and bottom)
Airfoil
Airfoils used from previous years:



Year 2000: E 211
Year 2001: E 423
Year 2002: OAF 102
From research:


E 214
S 1223
CL vs. AoA
Airfoil Matrix
Important
Factor
E423
OAF10
2
E122
E214
S1223
Cl
5
1
2
2
3
5
Cd
2
5
4
4
3
2
Constructio
n
3
5
5
4
4
3
Overall
50
30
33
30
33
38
Airfoil Design and Calculations
Wing:
VL
Re 

C D min
S wet
 FF  C f
S ref
4
t
t
FF  [1  L   100  ]  R
c
c
Re (S1223)
326529
Swet [in^2]
3016.6402
Wing Span [in]
120
Wing Chord [in]
12
Sref [in^2]
1440
Clmax
2.3648
Cf (turbulent)
0.005559594
Cf (laminar)
0.002324006
t/c
0.121
x/c
0.2
FF
1.384435888
Cdmin (turb)
0.016124153
Cdmin (laminar)
0.006740173
Wing Shape
Rectangular
Tapered
Rounded (or Elliptical)
Swept Wing
Delta Wing
Wing Shape Comparison
Rectangular Wing
Advantages:


Greater aileron control
East to construct
Disadvantages:

Not efficient in terms of stall and drag
Tapered Wing
Advantages:


Decrease drag / Increase lift
Harder to construct
Disadvantages:

Not as efficient in terms of stall and drag
Wing Shape Comparison
Elliptical Wing
Advantages:


Minimum drag
Most efficient compared to rect. and tapered
Disadvantages:

Hardest to construct
Swept and Delta Wings
Advantages:


Minimum drag in high speed
Very stable and flexible
Disadvantages:

Suitable only for high speed aircrafts
Wing Shape Matrix
Wing
Efficiency
Stall
Construct. Overall
Characteristic
5
4
65
importan
ce
Rect.
4
4
4
5
56
Tapered
4
4
4
52
Elliptical
5
5
2
48
Swept
3
3
3
36
Delta
3
3
3
36
Dihedral angle
Dihedral Wing
Flat Wing
Cathedral Wing
Gull Wing
Wing Angle Comparison
Dihedral Wing
Advantages:


Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side
Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turning
Disadvantages:


Stress concentration at wing roots
Harder to construct
Flat Wing
Advantages:


Easy to construct
Load distribution is equally spread out the wing
Disadvantages:

Not as stable as dihedral wings
Wing Angle Comparison
Cathedral Wing
Advantages:

Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side

Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turning
Disadvantages:

Stress concentration at wing roots

Harder to construct

Suitable for high speed cargo planes
Gull Wing
Advantages:

Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side

Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turning
Disadvantages:

Stress concentration at the Gull point

Hardest to construct

Suitable for high speed aircrafts
Wing Angle Matrix
Important
Factor
Dihedral Flat
Cathedral Gull
Stability
5
5
3
5
3
performance
4
4
3
2
2
efficiency
4
5
4
2
2
construction
3
3
5
3
2
Overall
80
70
58
50
37
Number of Wings
Monoplane
Biplane
Triplane
Number of Wings Comparison
Monoplane
Advantages


Easiest to construct
Very light weighted compared to Bi- and Tri-planes
Disadvantages


Produces less lift for the aircraft
Less stable when turning
Biplane
Advantages


Adds more lift to the aircraft
More stable when turning
Disadvantages


Harder to construct and repair
Adds more weight to the aircraft
Triplane
Advantages


Produces highest lift for aircraft
Most stable compared to Mono- and Bi-planes
Disadvantages


Hardest to construct and repair
Adds more weight to the aircraft
Number of Wings Matrix
Currently do not have one yet
2004 Aero East Design rules are not up
Decision is made based upon on the rules
and regulations of the competition
Selection
•Selig 1223
•Rectangular
•Dihedral
Fuselage Design and Calculations
Fuselage:
length
25
in
width
5
in
planforrm area
151
in^2
wetted area
605
in^2
fuselage/boom
density
0.002175
coefficient of viscosity
3.677E-07
Velocity (flight speed)
51
Re (turbulent)
l/d
Form factor
628484.4982
5
1.4925
Cf
0.004883112
Cd min (turbulent)
0.029200444
slugs/ft^3
slugs/ft-sec
ft/sec
VL
Re 

C D min
S wet
 FF  C f
S ref
FF  1  60 /( FR)^3  0.0025FR
Fuselage
Panels
Wireframe
Cast Mold
Injection Mold
Fuselage Comparison
Panels
Pros:
Lightweight
Easy to construct
Easy to assemble
Affordable
Cons:
Not very strong
Fuselage Comparison
Wire frame
Pros:
Very Strong and
sturdy
Affordable
Cons:
Heavy
Difficult to construct
Fuselage Comparison
Cast Molding
Pros:
Very accurate
shape
Aerodynamic
advantages
Strong frame
No assembly
required
Cons:
unaffordable
Difficult to design
a mold
No spare parts
Fuselage Comparison
Injection Molding
Pros:
Very accurate
shape
Aerodynamic
advantages
Strong frame
No assembly
required
Cons:
Unaffordable
Heavy
Difficult to design
a mold
No spare parts
Fuselage Matrix
Importance
Panels
Wire frame
Cast Mold
Injection
Mold
Construction
5
5
3
4
2
Weight
5
5
4
3
2
Cost
4
5
4
2
2
Strength
4
3
5
4
5
Total
90
82
71
59
48
1
2
3
4
Ranking
Selection
Panel Fuselage
Boom Design and Calculations
Tail Boom:
Re
1835174.735
length boom
48
in
length fuselage
25
in
length fuselage/boom
73
in
Swet
28
in^2
Sref
14
in^2
Cf (turbulent)
0.004001212
Cd min (turbulent)
0.008402546
VL
Re 

C D min
S wet
 FF  C f
S ref
FF  1.05
Tail Boom
1 spar
2 spars
3 spars
3 or more panels
Tail Boom Matrix
Importance
1 spar
2 spars
3 spars
3 or more
panels
Construction
4
5
5
5
4
Weight
4
5
4
3
5
Strength
5
3
4
5
3
Total
65
55
56
57
51
3
2
1
4
Ranking
Selection
Three Spar
Landing Gear
Importance
Facto
r
Without Rod
2 Nose
2 Tail
3
5
3
5
4
Impact
5
2
3
3
4
Construction
3
4
3
3
3
37
33
39
41
Steerability
3
5
3
5
4
Impact
5
3.5
4.5
4
5
Construction
3
4
3
3
3
44.5
40.5
44
46
Total
Ratings 1-5
1 Tail
Steerability
Total
With Rod
1 Nose
Landing Gear Analysis
SolidWorks models



Deflection Analysis
Stress Analysis
Deformation Analysis
Top fixed
Force applied to bottom of legs


Force applied = 45lbs
Force = Weight of plane
Landing Gear Design 1
Analysis
•Standard Main Landing Gear
•Aluminum
•Max Deflection .2238 in
•Design Rejected
•Stress Max 6.162e3 Psi
Landing Gear Design 2
Analysis
•Max Deflection .0196 in
•Stress Max 1.651 Psi
•Main Landing Gear with Rod
•Aluminum
•Last years final design
Landing Gear Design 3
Analysis
•Max Deflection 1.841e-3 in
•Stress Max 6.783e+2 Psi
•Main Landing Gear
•Truss Design
•Aluminum
•Design Being Strongly
Considered
Landing Gear Design 4
Analysis
•Max Deflection 1.342e-3 in
•Main Landing Gear
•Modified Truss Design
•Aluminum
•Design Being Strongly
Considered
•Stress Max 5.332e+2 Psi
Landing Gear Design 5
Analysis
•Max Deflection 1.890e-4 in
•Stress Max 2.651e+2 Psi
•Main Landing Gear
•Modified Truss Design
•Modified for Lighter Weight
•Aluminum
•Selected
Tail Design and Calculations
•Tail stabilizer does not provide lift to
plane.
•Symmetrical airfoil is needed for vertical
tail.
Horizontal tail:
Re (NACA 0012)
Vertical Tail:
175975.6
Re (NACA0012)
246365.9
chord (MAC)
7
in
chord (MAC)
9.8
in
Swet
0
in^2
Swet
189
in^2
in
Tail height
in^2
Sref
Wing Span
Sref
Clmax
Cf (laminar)
40
280
0
0.003166
24
in
235.2
in
Clmax
Cf (laminar)
0.002675
t/c
0.12
t/c
0.12
x/c
0.287
x/c
0.287
FF
1.271607
FF
1.271607
Cdmin (laminar)
0
Cdmin (laminar)
0.0027339
Tail
Conventional Tail
T-Tail
H-Tail
Triple Tail
V-Tail
Tail Matrix
Importance
Conventio
nal Tail
T-Tail
H-Tail
Triple Tail
V-Tail
Constructi
on
5
5
4
4
3
4
Surface
Area/ Drag
4
4
4
4
3
4
Control/
Stability
4
4
4
4
5
3
Total
65
57
52
52
47
48
1
2
2
5
4
Ranking
Tail
Vertical Tail Stabilizer



2ft
controls the horizontal
movement of plane
keeps the nose of the
plane from swinging from
side to side
Horizontal Tail Stabilizer



3.33ft
controls vertical movement
of plane
prevents an up-and-down
motion of the nose
Construction
Wing/Tail Construction


Foam Core
Risers (Balsa Wood)
Fuselage Construction


Plywood
Aluminum Plate
Boom Construction



Wooden Dowels
Carbon Fiber Tubes
Plywood
Landing Gear


Aluminum
Steel
Tire



Rubber Core
Air Filled Rubber
Sponge
Construction Matrix
Wing
Tail
Fuselage
Boom
Landing
Gear
Tire
Foam
Riser
s
Aluminum
Plate
Plywood
Wooden
Dowels
Carbon
Fiber
Tubes
Aluminu
m
Steel
Rubber
Core
Air Filled
Rubber
Sponge
Importa
nce
Ease
3
2
4
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
4
Strength
3
4
4
5
5
3
5
3
4
4
5
2
Accuracy
4
3
4
5
5
5
5
4
3
4
4
2
Weight
5
3
5
2
4
4
5
4
3
2
4
5
Machinea
bility
3
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
3
2
2
4
57
80
75
85
79
87
72
57
53
66
63
Total
ME 423 Senior Design, Fall 2003. Project Number 13
Team members: R. Hernandez, Y. Kee, S. McNulty, J. Pisano, C. Yan
Title: Creation of a Heavy Lift Radio-Controlled Cargo Plane
Objectives:
Advisor: Professor Siva Thangam
Design Results:
•Design a high performance heavy lift R/C cargo
plane whose purpose is to carry the most weight
possible
•Carbon Fiber Spars connecting fuselage and tail
•Enter manufactured design into 2004 SAE Aero
Design East Competition in Orlando, FL
•Rectangular wing planform
•S1223 airfoil
•balsa wood risers construction of stabilizers and wings
•Horner plates (winglets) for improved flight characteristics
•Tail dragger landing gear configuration
•Unitized body fuselage
Design Approach:
•Technology
•Utilization of the latest airfoil simulations,
composite materials, to obtain the lightest design
that creates the most lift
•Maximum lift
•Selection of airfoil and wing shape
•Light materials
•Drag reduction
Design Specifications:
•Wingspan: 10ft
•Engine: FX OS 2 stroke motor
0.61 cubic inches 1.9 hp
•Minimum Cargo Area: 120 in3
•Cargo Weight: 35 pounds
•Empty Plane Weight: 10 pounds
•Plane Length: 7.5ft
•Plane Height: 1 ft
•Dihedral Wing
Computer Aided Drawing of Design:
Final Design
End of Semester Deliverables
Completed Airplane design


Calculations
CAD models and analyses
Completed parts list for plane construction
Gantt Chart for spring semester
Budget
Summary
Objectives
Schedule/Progress
Design Concepts and Analysis




Airfoil
Fuselage
Tail
Landing Gear
End of Semester Deliverables
Next Semester Goals
Questions???