Transcript Orange Team Presentation Overview

Oklahoma State University
Aerospace Capstone
Orange Team Final Presentation
“Shamu: A Whale of a Plane”
April 16, 2001
Orange Team Presentation
Overview
Team Architecture and Group Responsibilities
Technical Group Reports
– Aerodynamics Group
– Propulsion Group
– Structures Group
Financial Overview
Highlight Video
Questions
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
2
Orange Team Architecture
Advisor
Chief Engineer
Aerodynamics Lead
Propulsion Lead
Structures Lead
Fuselage Team
Wing Team
Landing Gear Team
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
3
Technical Group
Responsibilities
 Aerodynamics
Group
– Design of the aircraft
Airfoil Selection
Wing and Tail Sizing
Fuselage Configuration
Control Surface Sizing
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
4
Technical Group
Responsibilities
 Aerodynamics
Group (con’t)
– Integration of Propulsion Needs
Speed Controller, Motor, and Battery cooling
– Adaptation to Structural Requirements
Wing carry-through structure, tail mounting, and
control linkages
– Construction Drawings
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
5
Technical Group
Responsibilities

Propulsion Group
– Testing
Power, Capacity, and Thrust from past motors and batteries
– Selection and Sizing
Motor, Propeller, Batteries, and Gear Box
– System Performance
Theoretical Flight Profile with Aerodynamics Group
Optimization
Develop Sortie Strategy from Prototype Flight Tests
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
6
Technical Group
Responsibilities
 Structures
Group
– Structural Analysis and Design
Major Components are Wing, Fuselage, Tail, and
Landing Gear
– Construction Techniques and Materials
– Component Placement
– Group Responsible for Aircraft Construction
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
7
Orange Team
Aerodynamics Group
Tiffany Boehm – Lead
Luke Bell
Charles O’Neill
Greg Schulke
8
Aerodynamics Group
 Preliminary
Design Considerations
– Optimization
– Conceptual sketches were drawn by entire team
– Additional sketches from underclassmen
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
9
Aerodynamics Group
 Optimization
– Blends the contest rules and scoring details
with aerodynamic and physical principles.
– Produces the best scoring mission profile.
– Also defines some aircraft information such as
wing area and the amount of lift needed.
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
10
Aerodynamics Group
Output:
Optimized
Input:
Guess Values
Iterate
Takeoff
Geometry
Cruise
Propulsion
Score
Optimization Program Logic
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
11
Aerodynamics Group
Sortie Optimization: Score versus sorties
30.00
25.00
20.00
Score 15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0
1
Steel Sorties
April 16, 2001
2
3
4
Orange Team
12
Aerodynamics Group
 Preliminary
–
–
–
–
Design Considerations
Evaluation of conceptual design
Selection of aircraft configuration
Further design decisions
Payload configuration exploration
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
13
Aerodynamics Group

Five main configurations were considered in detail.

Conventional design chosen using decision matrix.
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
14
Aerodynamics Group

Further design decisions for configuration
– Wing placement
– Tail configuration
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
15
Aerodynamics Group
 Payload
configuration
– Speed of payload exchange
– Structural considerations
– Weight
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
16
Aerodynamics Group
 Detail
–
–
–
–
Design Considerations
Main airfoil selection
Stability and control development
Drag analysis and reduction
Further development of the optimization
program
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
17
Aerodynamics Group
 Airfoil
Selection
– Wing span limited by contest rules.
– Wing area and needed lift performance found
using the optimization program
– Polar plots used to find an airfoil with the
desired lift and drag performance
– Eppler 423 airfoil was chosen
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
18
Aerodynamics Group
 Stability
–
–
–
–
–
and Control Issues
Weight and balance
Sizing of vertical and horizontal tail surfaces
Trim analysis
Aileron sizing
Polyhedral analysis
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
19
Aerodynamics Group
 Drag Analysis
and Reduction
– Identify main sources of drag
– Design refinements for reduction of drag
– Post-production modifications for further
reduction of drag
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
20
Aerodynamics Group
Drag Breakdown
Fuselage
38%
Wing
48%
Vertical Tail
4%
Landing Gear
2%
Upsweep
1%
April 16, 2001
Horizontal Tail
7%
Orange Team
21
Aerodynamics Group
 Steps
–
–
–
–
–
–
taken to reduce drag
Improve surface smoothness of entire aircraft
Smooth, rounded transitions between surfaces
Tapered surfaces for the fore and aft assemblies
Fillets between the wing and fuselage surfaces
Fillets between the tail and fuselage surfaces
Wheel pants
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
22
Aerodynamics Group
Drag Coefficients
Empire State
Building
1.4
Large Birds
(Ravens)
.40
Shamu
.03
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
23
Aerodynamics Group
 Optimization Program refinements
– Aerodynamic Additions
Inclusions of drag analysis
– Propulsion Additions
Experimental values integrated into program
Flight testing data used to further refine the program
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
24
Aerodynamics Group
 Final
–
–
–
–
Design Summary
Conventional aircraft configuration
Low wing
Polyhedral wing
Cylindrical fuselage
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
25
Propulsion Posse
pro·pul·sion - (pr -p l sh n) n.
 The process of driving or propelling.
 A driving or propelling force.
 Amanda Ciskowski
26
Propulsion Posse
Team Members
Binaya Thapa – Lead
Blake Cook
Millay Brians
27
Propulsion Overview
 Literature
Survey
 Restrictions
 Motor Selection
 Battery Selection
 Propeller Selection
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
28
Contest Restrictions

Motor
–
–
–
–

Restricted to Only Two Companies
Maximum Amperage - 40 Amps
Propeller Driven Brushed Electric Motor
Unmodified and “Over-the-Counter”
Battery
– Nickel-Cadmium
– Maximum Weight - Five Pounds
– “Over-the-Counter”
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
29
Motor Selection
Output – 1150 Watts
 AstroFlight Motors
 Power
– 640
– 660
– 690
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
30
87
Motor Efficiency versus
Current
85.9%
Efficiency (%)
85
85.5%
83
83.4%
81
79
77
75
0
10
20
30
40
50
Current (A)
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
31
Motor Figure of Merits
Decision Factor
Weight
Astro 40
Astro 60
Astro 90
Power Output
.2
-1
0
1
Efficiency
.3
0
0
-1
Ability to
Handle
Current Load
.1
-1
0
0
Cost
.1
0
0
1
Weight
.2
1
0
-1
Availability
.1
0
0
0
Score
1.0
-.1
0
-.2
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
32
Battery Selection
 Application
 Capacity
per Mass
 Weight
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
33
Battery Statistics
Mass (g)
Price (US
Dollar)
Capacity
per Mass
(mAh/g)
Part Number
Size
Capacity
(mAh)
N-800AR
A
800
34
3.00
23.53
N-1300SCR
Sub-C
1300
52
2.25
25.00
N-4000DRL
D
4000
160
5.50
25.00
N-1250SCRL
4/5 Sub-C
1250
43
3.50
29.06
N-3000CR
C
3000
84
4.50
34.17
N-1900SCR
Sub-C
1900
54
3.50
35.19
RC-2400
Sub-C
2400
54
5.50
44.44
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
34
Battery Figure of Merits
Decision Factor
Weight
N-1900SCR
RC-2400
N-3000CR
Weight
.4
0
1
-1
Efficiency
.2
0
1
1
Capacity per
Mass
.3
0
1
1
Cost
.1
0
-1
-1
Total
1.0
0
.8
0
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
35
Propeller Selection
 Types
–
–
–
–
of Propellers
APC
Wood
Carbon Fiber
Epoxy Composite
 Pitch
to Diameter Ratio
 Theoretical/Experimental Analysis
– Wind Tunnel Testing
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
36
Final Propulsion System
– 661 Motor
 Gear Box Ratio – 2.71
 37 Cells of RC-2400 Batteries
 22x20 Bolly Propeller
 AstroFlight
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
37
Structures Group
Michael Ayres – Team Lead
Jim Meiseman
Voon-Seng Chea
Chir Siang Pea
Naoki Hosoda
Loh Yuh
Jogendran Pulendran
Cheng Shan Gan
38
Structures Overview
 Fuselage
 Wing
 Tail
Section
 Landing Gear
 Speed Loader
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
39
Fuselage Structure Options
 Longerons
 Reinforced Skin
 Stringers
 Keelson
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
40
Fuselage Figures of Merit
 Weight
 Bending
Strength
 Connection Interface
 Construction Complexity
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
41
Wing Structure Options
 Tube
Spar
 C-Channel
 End
Grain Balsa Spar
 Hybrid
April 16, 2001
Spar
Spar
Orange Team
42
Wing Figures of Merit
 Weight
 Bending
Strength
 Connection Interface
 Construction Complexity
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
43
Landing Gear Types
 Conventional Bow
 Single
Stroke Strut
 Two-Stroke Strut
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
44
Landing Gear Figures of Merit
 Weight
 Drag
 Ground Steerability
 Dependability
 Manufacturability
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
45
Final Design
Materials, carrythrough structure, and
construction methods
Fuselage
- Foam/Carbon Fiber Sandwich
- Rotocut Tooling
- Balsa Sandwich Wing Carrythrough
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
46
Final Design Cont’d
Wing and Tail Section
- Foam/Carbon Fiber Sandwich
- Feathercut Tooling and Formica Templates
- Landing Gear Carrythrough
Landing Gear
- Multiple Layers of Carbon Fiber
Speed Loader
- Custom Sized Duffle Bag
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
47
Financial Overview
Amanda Ciskowski- Chief Engineer
48
Financial Overview
 Funding
– Corporate and private sponsorship
– Material Donations
 Expense
Categories
– Mechanical and Electrical systems
– Consumable materials
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
49
Expense Breakdown
Construction
24%
29%
Mechanical
and Electrical
system s
47%
Consum able
Materials
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
50
Thank you to our sponsors…

Mercruiser
 Advanced Composites
Group
 Pump and Motor
Works, Inc.
 Phillips 66
 Chevron-Phillips
 OSU Flight Factory
April 16, 2001

Advanced Racing
Composites
 AstroFlight
 NASA
 Charles Machine
Works
 Anheuser-Busch
 Frankfurt-Short-Bruza
Associates
Orange Team
51
More sponsors…
 William
and Evelyn Ciskowski
 Glen and Chris Taylor
 Garryl and Tracy Keel
 Keith and Barbara Keel
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
52
Special Thanks to…
 Dr. Arena
and Joe for all of their help
 Dan Bierly, our pilot
 Dr. Delahoussaye for his support…and the
microwave
 Janet Smith and Sally Kellenberger for the
survival kits
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
53
Questions?
April 16, 2001
Orange Team
54