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