Final PowerPoint Presentation
Download
Report
Transcript Final PowerPoint Presentation
2003 AIAA Cessna/ONR
Design Build Fly Competition
Design Presentation
Oklahoma State University
Orange Team
The Orange Team
Our Team: G.R.A.D.S. 2003
Global Rodent Airborne Delivery Service
Our Plane: Kitty Hawk
Presentation Overview
Team Architecture
Group
Responsibilities
Aerodynamics
Group
Structures Group
Propulsion Group
Aircraft Overview
Financial
Summary
Video
Questions
Team Architecture
Group Responsibilities
Aerodynamics Group
Sizing and configuration of aircraft
Perform sensitivity studies
Flight performance analysis
Mission Selection
Group Responsibilities
Structures Group
Structural design, analysis, and construction
of the aircraft
Determining how the aircraft fits in the box
Material and construction method selection
Create all construction documents
Group Responsibilities
Propulsion Group
Testing and analysis of possible propulsion
components
Selection of propulsion system components
Testing, maintenance, upkeep, and
installation of propulsion and electrical
systems
Aerodynamics Group
Andy Gardos (Lead)
Valerie Barker
Aerodynamics Group
Aircraft Design
Goal is to design a competitive aircraft for the
competition
Design Phases
Conceptual
Preliminary
Detail
Conceptual Design
Mission Selection
Airplane Configuration
Aircraft Component Configurations
Mission Selection
Optimization analysis for maximizing score
Results: Fly Missions A and B
Airplane Configuration
Four basic configurations were discussed
Canard
Biplane
Flying Wing
Conventional
Canard
Pros
Increased lift
Cons
RAC increase
Sizing constraints
Stall characteristics
Biplane
Pros
Increased lift
Wing span reduction
Cons
RAC penalty
Increased weight
Not necessary
Flying Wing
Pros
RAC reduction
No tail & fuselage
Less drag due to
streamlined shape
Cons
Handling qualities
Fitting into the box
Assembly
Conventional
Pros
Simplicity
Good handling qualities
Easier to fit in the box
Reasonable RAC
Cons
Larger wing span as compared to other
concepts
Other Aircraft Components
Main aircraft components
Wing
Tail
Fuselage
Wing Design
Airfoil Shape
Wing Size
Wing Vertical Location
Control Surfaces
Wing Airfoil Selection
Optimization analysis used to determine
the airfoil giving the best overall score.
A high lift airfoil was selected.
Wing Size
Initial area and span estimates were
provided by our optimization analysis
program
Wing Area – 7 ft2 to 11 ft2
Wing Span – 7 ft to 8 ft
Wing Vertical Location
Low Wing
Pros: Single attach point for gear and wing
Cons: Payload interference, may need dihedral
Mid Wing
Pros: Less drag for certain fuselage cross-sections
Cons: Payload interference, difficult to construct
High Wing
Pros: No interference with payload drop, no dihedral
necessary
Cons: Multiple attach points for gear and wing
Wing Control Surfaces
Ailerons
Sized using historical estimations from text
25 – 30% of wing chord
45 – 60% of wing span
Flaps
Not necessary
The high lift Eppler airfoil should provide sufficient
lift to meet the takeoff distance requirements
Tail Design
T-tail
Pros: Horizontal stabilizer effectivity
Cons: Weight increase
Conventional
Pros: Proven design, adequate control
Cons: Increased RAC
V-tail
Pros: Lower RAC, less interference drag
Cons: Complexity, adverse yaw
Tail Airfoil
NACA 0009 Airfoil
Symmetrical airfoil
Easy to manufacture
Fuselage Design
Conventional with boom
Main fuselage uses
Storage
Structural attach point
Boom advantages
Decreased weight
Collapsibility
Sensitivity Studies
Drag Estimates
Increased parasite drag does not significantly
increase takeoff distance
Propulsion Efficiencies
Efficiencies greatly affect the takeoff distance
Score was not greatly affected by varying
parameters
Drag Tests
Full scale model of prototype analyzed
using break down method to determine
drag contributions.
Preliminary Sizing
Optimization Analysis
Wing area, wingspan, battery weight, battery
power in TO & climb, cruise velocity
Raymer’s Text
Fuselage length, tail area, control surface
sizing, tail dihedral
Microsoft Excel
CG location
Sizing Trades & Optimization
Optimization analysis program ran to get data
points
Best Score Data Trends Optimal Data Trends
Wing Area – 11.35 ft2
Wing Span – 8.0 ft
TO Power – 836 W
Cruise Velocity – 54.3 ft/s
Battery Weight – 2.49 lb
Wing Area – 9.379 ft2
Wing Span – 7.958 ft
TO Power – 1060 W
Cruise Velocity – 57 ft/s
Battery Weight – 3.24 lb
Data Trends
Stability Calculations
Optimization program performed calculations
Static stability calculated
Longitudinal
Directional
Roll
Dynamic stability not calculated
Our conventional design possesses static stability
and should possess dynamic stability as well.
Aircraft Dimensions
Wingspan = 7.958 ft
Wing area = 9.379 ft2
Wing chord = 1.179 ft
Fuselage length = 5.75 ft
Fuselage height = 7.25 in
Fuselage width = 6.75 in
Boom diameter = 0.72 in
Main fuselage length = 3 ft
CG location = 1.212 ft
AC location = 1.295 ft
Tail area = 2.419 ft2
Tail span = 2.833 ft
Tail chord = 10.25 in
Dihedral angle = 30.6°
Struct. weight = 11.65 lb
Mission Performance
Mission A
Score = 4.24
Takeoff Distance = 111.34 ft
Total Time = 3.82 min
Mission B
Score = 3.01
Takeoff Distance = 90.09 ft
Total Time = 4.11 min
Structures Group
Aaron Wheeler (Lead)
Carin Bouska
Patrick Lim
Don Carkin
Corky Neukam
Katie Higgins
Kuniko Yamada
Structures Overview
Wing/tail
Fuselage
Payload Drop
Boom
Landing gear
Wing/Tail Considerations
Composite or conventional?
Material Research
Jun-Dec 2002
Studied 3ft sections
Test simulated
contest wingtip test
Strength to Weight
Ratio Results:
Conventional 255.1
Foam 201.0
Wing/Spar Connection
The wings were attached to each other with a
carbon spar through a spine
Fuselage Material Matrix
Fuselage Shape Considerations
Low Drag
Fit in Box
Construction Ease
Payload Deployment
Simple Mechanism
Low Profile Tabs
Positive Use of
Gravity
Rapid Deployment
Boom Decision Matrix
Shapes to be Considered
Evaluation Criteria
Scale
Optimum Choice
Boom Material Considerations
Weight Vs Material
0.8
Weight
Yield Strength
Deflection
Weight (lb/ft)
0.7
0.6
0.5
Carbon Fiber
0.4
Stainless Steel
0.3
Aluminum
0.2
0.1
0
Material
Young’s Modulus
Ease of Flight
Deflection Vs Load
Deflection (in)
1.0000
0.8000
Carbon Fiber
0.6000
Stainless Steel
0.4000
Aluminum
0.2000
0.0000
10
15
20
25
Load (lb)
30
35
40
Boom Tolerances
Location
Center Axis
0.5°
Distance from
Pinned End
Sizing of Hole
Tolerance
0.001inch
Snap-Pin Boom Assembly
External Locking
Snap-Mechanism
Spring loaded
Self-locking
Retractable option
Snap-Pin Tail Assembly
Internal Locking
Snap-Mechanism
Spring loaded
Self-locking
Foldable option
Main Gear Assembly
External Locking
Snap-Mechanism
Quick
Assembly/Storage
Forward Swept
Pneumatic Braking
System
Propulsion Group
Brandon Blair (Lead)
Mike Duffy
Phung Ly
System Components
Contest Requirements
Motors
Battery Powered
Astro Flight or Graupner Brands
Brushed
Batteries
Nickel Cadmium (NiCad)
Maximum Five Pound Weight Limit
Contest Requirements
Propellers
Commercially Produced
Must Fit in Box (Less than 24 in.)
Miscellaneous
40 Amps Maximum Current
Qualitative Analysis
Motor Configurations
Cost
Rated Aircraft Cost (RAC)
Weight
Propellers
Historical Perspective
Ground Clearance
Testing Phase
Motors
Ram-air Cooling Modifications
Propellers
Folding and Traditional Designs
Batteries
Endurance
Final Specifications
Motor: Astro Flight Cobalt 40
Gearbox: Superbox 3.1:1 Ratio
Propeller: APC 20” x 13” E
Batteries: 24 Cells, 2400 mAh
Cruise Power: 650 W
Aircraft Assembly
Final Aircraft
Flight Testing
Prototype
9 Total and Successful flights
Refined power requirements
Fine tuned center of gravity
Final Aircraft
Displayed improved flight handling qualities
Showed improved power usage and
increased speed
Prototype vs. Final Aircraft
Prototype
13.43 pounds
Final Aircraft
11.65 pounds
Smaller boom and fuselage
More aerodynamic and efficient tail
Financial Overview
Funding
Corporate Sponsors
Private Donations
Team Members
Expenses
Mechanical and Electrical Components
Construction Materials
Consumables
Expense Categories
Thanks To Our Sponsors
Aero Srv.
Paul Chaney
Industrial Rubber, Inc.
Westex Document
Destruction, Inc.
Sullivan
Whitehead
ICES
PeasCock
Wilcox
OGE
Mercruiser
El Chico’s
NASA
Ditch Witch
OSU SGA
Special Thanks to...
Dr. Arena and Joe, without whom we would not
be here today
Dan Bierly, our pilot
Ronnie Lawhon
John Hix for video assistance
Ditch Witch for the use of their airport
Dr. Delahoussaye for technical assistance
Danny Shipka for printing services and design
Ruben Ramen for designing our team logo
Questioning Period After
Video