Transcript Wing - Stevens

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





Wing
Fuselage
Tail
Landing Gear
Goals
Objectives





Competition Specs are finally posted for the 2004
competition
The plane meets the specifications of the 2004 SAE Aero
Design 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
Design Specifications





Minimum allowed wingspan
120 inches
Takeoff limit
200 feet
Landing Distance
400 feet
Minimum cargo area
6 in x 5 in x 4 in
Engine




unmodified FX O.S. 2 stroke
motor
0.61 cubic inches
1.9 hp
E-4010 muffler
Design Specs Comparison
Design Specifications:
This Year (2004)
Previous Year (2003)
Wing Span
Minimum 10 ft
Maximum 6 ft
Wing Chord
No restriction
Maximum 1 ft
Cargo Volume
Minimum 120 in3
Minimum 300 in3
Maximum Takeoff Distance
200 ft
200 ft
Maximum Landing Distance
400 ft
400 ft
Engine
.61 FX-OS
.61 FX-OS or
K&B .61 R/C ABC
Battery
Minimum 500 mAh
Minimum 500 mAh
Schedule
Journal/Progress




Researched airfoil computer analysis
software
Calculations
Stereo-lithography Lab
Final Design




Landing Gear models and analysis
Fuselage Design and Calculations
Tail Design
Wing Design
Rules for Wing



16.1 Fixed Wing Aircraft Type Requirements and Restrictions
 Only fixed-wing designs are allowed to compete. Dirigibles, lighterthan-air craft, gyrocopters or helicopters are not allowed to compete,
but are welcome to demonstrate their capability's hors-concurs.
 ©2003 SAE International 9 2004 Aero Design East & West Rules
20. REGULAR CLASS - WINGSPAN LIMITATIONS
 The minimum wing span may not be smaller than 305 cm (120
inches). The wing span is defined as the maximum overall width of the
aircraft. Aircraft with a maximum overall width less than 305 cm (120
inches) shall be disqualified from the event.
20.1 Not Meeting the Minimum wingspan
 Aircraft not meeting the minimum wingspan limitation will be
disqualified from the contest. If schedule permits, at the discretion of
the contest director, the team may perform demonstration flights during
the contest.
Airfoil

S1223

OAF102

E423

Year 2000: E 211
Year 2001: E 423
Year 2002: OAF 102
Research: E 214
Research: S 1223
E214

E122
Airfoil selection
Important
Factor

Cl
5
1
2
2
3
5
Cd
2
5
4
4
3
2
Construction
3
5
5
4
4
3
Overall
50 30 33 30 33 38
CL&CD vs. AoA
Wing Calculation

Coefficient of Drag

Form Factor

Drag Force

Lift Force
Wing Calculations
Wing:
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 Angle
Flat Wing

Advantages:
 Easy to construct
 Load distribution is equally spread out the wing

Disadvantages:
 Not as stable as dihedral wings
Dihedral Wing

Advantages:
 Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side
 Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turning

Disadvantages:
 Harder to construct
 Stress concentration at wing roots
Wing Shape


Decrease drag / Increase lift
Harder to construct
Disadvantages:

Not as efficient in terms of stall and drag
Elliptical Wing

Advantages:


Minimum drag
Most efficient compared to rect. and tapered
Disadvantages:

Hardest to construct
Overall
4
5
4
65
Rectangular
4
4
5
56
Tapered
4
4
4
52
Elliptical
5
5
2
48
Not efficient in terms of stall and drag
Tapered Wing

Advantages:

Importance
Disadvantages:


Construct.

Stall
Characteristic

Greater aileron control
East to construct
Efficiency

Wing
Rectangular Wing

Advantages:
Control Surface Affect
Coefficient of Drag
No Flaps
Flaps +15
Coefficient of Lift
Flaps -15
No Flaps
0.12
3
coefficient of lift
coefficient of drag
Flaps -15
3.5
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-5
Flaps +15
0
0
5
angle of attack
10
15
-5
0
5
angel of attack
10
15
Wing Construction





Balsa Wood Risers
Bass Wood Spars
Dowel Leading Edge
Balsa Wood Trailing Edge
Honer Plate
Rib Design
Wing Design
Wing
Wing Stress Analysis
Max stress = 330.9 psi
Fuselage Guidelines
16.5 Payload
16.5.1 Payload and Payload Support
The payload must consist of a support assembly and plates.
21. CARGO BAY/MINIMUM CARGO VOLUME
Regular Class aircraft shall be capable of carrying and fully enclosing a rectangular block measuring
6 inches by 5 inches by 4 inches. During technical inspection, compliance with this rule shall be
tested by inserting a block with these dimensions into the aircraft. This block must be easily inserted
and removed without application of excess force during insertion or extraction, and the aircraft must
be structurally airworthy with the block installed. When the aircraft is ready to fly, the bay must be
fully enclosed. The cargo bay must be shown clearly in the design plans, with dimensions
included.
Note: The block does not guarantee enough area for your required weight.
21.1 Undersized Cargo Bay – Penalty
Planes that are unable to fit the 6 inches by 5 inches by 4 inches block into their cargo bay
will not be eligible to fly.
22. REQUIRED ENGINE
Regular Class aircraft must be powered by a single, unmodified O.S. .61FX with E-4010 Muffler.
No muffler extensions or headers that fit between the engine cylinder and the muffler may be used.
Muffler baffles must be installed, and must be unmodified from the factory installed configuration.
No fuel pumps are allowed.
While the engine may not be modified from its stock configuration, two specific components may be
installed on the engine for convenience and/or safety purposes:
· Remote needle valves, including needle valves that may be adjusted in flight are allowed.
· Tubes that redirect the exhaust flow may be affixed to the exhaust pipe.
Note: engine tear-down and inspection may be performed by the competition officials at any time
during the competition.
Fuselage Calculation

Dimension: 4in x 5in x 25 in
Coefficient of Drag

Form Factor

Drag Force

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
slugs/ft^3
coefficient of viscosity
3.677E-07
slugs/ft-sec
Velocity (flight speed)
51
Re (turbulent)
l/d
Form factor
Cf
Cd min (turbulent)
628484.4982
5
1.4925
0.004883112
0.029200444
ft/sec
Fuselage Construction
Panels
Pros:

Lightweight

Easy to construct

Easy to assemble

Affordable
Cons:

Not very strong
Cast Molding
Wire frame
Pros:
Pros:

Very Strong and sturdy  Very accurate shape

Aerodynamic advantages

Affordable

Strong frame

No assembly required
Cons:

Heavy

Difficult to construct
Cons:

unaffordable

Difficult to design a mold

No spare parts
Fuselage Design
Wire frame
Cast Mold

Panels

Panels
Wireframe
Cast Mold
Importance

Construction
5
5
3
4
Weight
5
5
4
3
Cost
4
5
4
2
Strength
4
3
5
4
Total
90
82
71
59
1
2
3
Ranking
Selection
Fuel Tank
Engine
Battery
Radio Receiver
Engine
Fuel Tank
Battery
Radio Receiver
Cargo Bay
Cargo Bay
Panel Fuselage
Previous design
Panel Fuselage
Final design
Fuselage
Fuselage
Fuselage cover
Fuselage base
Payload
Battery/ Receiver /Fuel tank
Engine: O.S. .61FX
Prop/ Nose
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)
Cd min (turbulent)
0.004001212
0.008402546
Tail Boom
3 spars
3 or more
panels

2 spars

spar
spars
spars
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
4
Ranking
1 spar

1
2
3
3
Importance

1
Selection
Three Spar
Truss design
Tail Calculation

Coefficient of lift = 0
Coefficient of drag = 0.01
Lift Force

Drag Force (H)

Drag Force (V)


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 Matrix
V-Tail
Triple Tail
H-Tail
T-Tail
Conventional
Tail
Importance
Construction
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




13.5 inches
controls the horizontal
movement of plane
keeps the nose of the plane
from swinging from side to
side
Horizontal Tail Stabilizer



36 inches
controls vertical movement
of plane
prevents an up-and-down
motion of the nose
Tail Design
Rib Design
Landing Gear
Without Rod
With Rod
Importance
Factor
Bent Rod Nose
Bent Rod Tail
Solid Nose
Solid Tail
Steerability
3
5
3
5
4
Impact
5
2
3
3
4
Construction
3
4
3
3
3
Total
50
37
33
39
41
Steerability
3
5
3
5
4
Impact
5
3.5
4.5
4
5
Construction
3
4
3
3
3
Total
50
44.5
40.5
44
46
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 & 2 Analysis
•Standard Main Landing Gear
•Aluminum
•Max Deflection .2238 in
•Stress Max 6.162e3 Psi
•Main Landing Gear
•Modified Truss Design
•Modified for Lighter Weight
•Aluminum
•Max Deflection 1.890e-4 in
•Stress Max 2.651e+2 Psi
Landing Gear Design 3 & 4 Analysis
•Main Landing Gear
•Truss Design
•Aluminum
•Stress Max 6.783e+2 Psi
•Max Deflection 1.841e-3 in
•Main Landing Gear
•Modified Truss Design
•Aluminum
•Max Deflection 1.342e-3 in
•Stress Max 5.332e+2 Psi
Final Landing Gear Design Analysis
•Main Landing Gear with Rod
•Aluminum
•Max Deflection .0196 in
•Stress Max 1.651 Psi
•Last years final design
Landing Gear Configuration



Tail Dragger
Tricycle
Not decided until Spring

Perform testing on which is more efficient
Landing Gear Construction


Aluminum
Tie Rod
Take-Off Distance

Take off Velocity

Mass of plane

Initial Coefficient of Lift

Initial Coefficient of Drag
Take-Off Distance

K constant

Take-off Drag

Static Thrust

Force balance at take-off
Take-Off Distance

Take-Off Distance Equation

Separation of Variables

Final Take-Off Distance
Landing Run Distance

Differential Equation of Motion

Landing ground runway

Coefficients A and B

Stall Velocity
Landing Run Distance

Touchdown Velocity

Coefficient of Lift and drag at

Coefficient B

Landing Distance
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
•S1223 airfoil
•Enter manufactured design into 2004 SAE Aero
Design West Competition in Fort Worth, TX
•Horner plates (winglets) for improved flight characteristics
•balsa wood risers construction of stabilizers and wings
•Rectangular wing planform
•Unitized body fuselage
•Dihedral Wing
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
Computer
Aided Drawing of Design:
Final Design
Final Design
Goals

Intercession


Next Semester




Make a budget
Complete construction early
Test Landing Gear Configuration
Test Plane design and modify if necessary
Compete in June
Summary



Objectives
Schedule/Progress
Design Concepts and Analysis





Airfoil
Fuselage
Tail
Landing Gear
Goals
Thank You