Transcript Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Progress Presentation

Heavy Lift Cargo Plane
Progress Presentation
Matthew Chin, Aaron Dickerson
Brett J. Ulrich, Tzvee Wood
November 4th, 2004
Group #1 – Project #3
Presentation Outline
• Review of Project Objectives & Deliverables
• Early Design Concepts
• Computer Software Implementation
– Data Digitalization
– WINFOIL Evaluations
– Engineering Equation Solver Calculations
• Design Concepts
–
–
–
–
Wing
Landing Gear
Tail
Prop
• Schedule Update
Project Objectives
• Compete in SAE Aero East Competition
• Apply areas of Mechanical Engineering
education to a real life problem:
– Dynamics
– Fluid Mechanics
– Modeling & Simulation
– Analysis of Stresses
Project Objectives
• Dynamics/Analysis of stresses
Force of drag, weight, and gravity on the
wing/fuselage
• Fluid Mechanics
Used in analysis of airfoil
• Modeling & Simulation
For CAD models of wing, fuselage, landing gear
Anticipated Deliverables
•
•
•
•
Finished calculations
Final wing selection
Sketches of the final design
CAD drawings - wing, fuselage, landing
gear
• Projected construction budget
• Parts order
Problems To Watch Out For
• Ideal design needs to be able to be
actually constructed
• Stability of construction so that the
plane does not fall apart on landing
• Time management for construction
• Previous team only used one design
did not iterate
• More practice on shrink wrap coating
procedure for wing
Early Design Concepts
• Biplanes originally popular for increased
lifting capacity
• At this scale the effect of the additional wing
is not worth the additional weight and
construction cost
Early Design Concepts
• Dual wing plane
also considered
• Initially thought to
be able to produce
significantly more
lift than standard
monoplane
• Alignment of wings
can produce major
parasitic losses if
done improperly
Early Design Concepts
• Flying wing early
popular concept
• One large wing has significantly larger area
than standard monoplane
• Possibly difficult to build and transport
• Still under consideration
Early Design Concepts
Plane Concepts
Criterion
Flying Wing
Monoplane
Biplane
2 Sequential Wings
Construction Feasibility
1
1
-1
0
Design Novelty
0
0
1
1
Simplicity of Calculations
1
0
-1
-1
Ruggedness
-1
1
-1
0
Stability
0
1
1
0
Durability
0
1
0
0
Weight
1
1
-1
-1
Lift
0
0
1
0
Cost
0
0
-1
-1
Σ +1
3
5
3
1
Σ -1
1
0
5
3
Σ 0
5
4
1
5
Rank
2
1
3
4
Data Digitalization
• SAE Documentation Provides Data for
LMN-1 Airfoil (similar to Selig 1223,
Liebeck LD-X17A and other RC aircraft)
• Data includes:
– The dependence of CL on Aspect Ratio and
Angle of Attack
– Viscous drag due to lift
– Ratio of Thrust to Static Thrust vs. Speed
Data Digitalization
• The following graphs are provided in the
aforementioned white paper
Data Digitalization
• Large samples of data points were manually
recorded and entered into MATLAB
In the event you missed it, they’re computerized now!
Wing Analysis
With WINFOIL
Each Wing Analyzed With Same Planform Area
Assumed 6inch Fuselage
Area (in2)
Aspect Ratio
Constant
Chord
Tapered
Wing
SB
Tapered
1797.85
1798.10
1797.85
1.62
1.62
1.62
MAC (Mean Aero
Chord)
33.27
33.72
33.72
Stall Speed (mph)
12.98
12.98
12.98
Max Speed (mph)
101
101
101
Max L/D
7.5
7.5
7.5
at what MPH
30
30
30
5.29
5.29
5.29
20
20
20
Min Sink Speed (ft/s)
at what MPH
• Monoplane first
examined
• First sought to examine
the effects of different
designs on L/D Ratio:
– Constant Chord
– Tapered
– Swept Back Tapered
• For each design L/D
ratio is the same
• Can be easily seen from
CL α CD
– CL=L/(0.5*AP*V2*ρ)
– CD=D/(0.5*AP*V2*ρ)
Wing Analysis
With WINFOIL
• Selected Eppler 193 Mod Wing
–
–
–
–
Previous designs
Suggestion of Senior Design Coordinator
Higher CL than other airfoils such as NACA 6409
Relatively easy to build
• No fine trailing edge
• Reasonable Thickness
• Decided against use of Swept Back Tapered
– Too many variables
– Requires too much precision
• Tapered Wing is still under consideration
Wing Analysis
With WINFOIL
Wing Profile
Criterion
NACA 6409
Eppler 193 Mod
Construction Feasibility
0
0
Design Novelty
1
0
Simplicity of Calculations
0
0
Ruggedness
0
0
Stability
0
0
Durability
0
0
Weight
0
0
Lift
-1
1
Cost
-1
0
Σ +1
1
1
Σ -1
2
0
Σ 0
6
8
Rank
2
1
Wing Analysis
With WINFOIL
Wings
Criterion
Constant Chord
Tapered Chord
Sweptback Tapered
Construction Feasibility
1
0
-1
Design Novelty
0
1
1
Simplicity of Calculations
1
0
-1
Ruggedness
0
0
0
Stability
0
1
-1
Durability
0
0
0
Weight
-1
1
-1
Lift
1
1
-1
Cost
0
-1
-1
Σ +1
3
4
1
Σ -1
1
1
6
Σ 0
5
4
2
Rank
2
1
3
Wing Analysis
With WINFOIL
Same Root Chord
Tapered Wings
Wing Taper Ratio
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
1797.85
1573.27
1348.69
1124.11
MAC (Mean Aero
Chord)
33.27
29.31
25.88
23.21
Aspect Ratio
1.62
1.85
2.16
2.59
Stall Speed (mph)
12.98
13.87
14.98
16.41
Max Speed (mph)
101
105
112
118
Max L/D
7.5
8.05
8.70
9.46
at what MPH
30
30
30
30
5.29
5.1
4.89
4.66
20
21
22
23
Area (in2)
Min Sink Speed (ft/s)
at what MPH
• Effect of wing taper
ratio on various
performance
characteristics
examined
• Assumptions:
– Wing holds entire plane
weight assumed to be
7lbs
– Max 2hp
– No fuselage accounted
for
Wing Analysis
With WINFOIL
Same Area for Wing
Constant
Chord
Tapered
Wing
SB
Tapered
1998
1998
1998
1.8
1.8
1.8
MAC (Mean Aero
Chord)
33.27
33.72
33.72
Stall Speed (mph)
12.31
12.31
12.31
Max Speed (mph)
98
98
98
7.68
7.68
7.68
30
30
30
4.68
4.68
4.68
19
19
19
Area (in2)
Aspect Ratio
Max L/D
at what MPH
Min Sink Speed (ft/s)
at what MPH
• Flying Wing
Analysis
• Like the Monoplane
L/D ratio is
independent of wing
design for wings of
same area
Wing Analysis
With WINFOIL
Same Root Chord – Flying Wing
Full 60 In Taken as Wing Span, No Parasitic Losses
Tapered Wings
Wing Taper Ratio
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
Area (in2)
1998
1692.13
1498.72
1249.08
MAC (Mean Aero Chord)
33.27
28.48
25.88
23.29
1.8
2.13
2.4
2.88
Stall Speed (mph)
12.31
13.38
14.21
15.57
Max Speed (mph)
98
104
107
114
7.68
8.51
9.12
10.05
30
30
30
30
4.68
4.46
4.32
4.11
19
20
20
21
Aspect Ratio
Max L/D
at what MPH
Min Sink Speed (ft/s)
at what MPH
Wing Analysis
With WINFOIL
• WINFOIL 3D
Rendering
• Still experiencing
problems exporting
from WINFOIL to
CAD programs for
tapered wings
Wing Features Being
Considered
• Hoerner Plates – reduce tip losses
• Dihedral Angle – reduces chance of
stall under banked conditions
May not be necessary for a 60” wingspan
Add’l Computer Analysis
• Previously generated MATLAB curve
fits utilized in EES for calculations
• Entire current EES model included in
presentation handouts
Add’l Computer Analysis
• Based upon white paper and aerodynamic
principles
• Input Design Parameters
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Takeoff distance (e.g., <190ft)
Landing Distance (e.g., <380ft)
FuselageLength
FuselageWidth
FuselageBoomLength
WingSpan
WingAR
WingTaper
S_Ref
28 ft
46 ft
10 in
5 in
40 in
60 in
1.62
1.0
1800 in2
Add’l Computer Analysis
• Output Values
– Takeoff velocity
48 ft/s = 33 mph
– Stall velocity
49 ft/s = 34 mph
– Maximum weight (plane + payload)
• Next generation of EES development
• Currently Weight is an input
• Benefits
– Rapid design
– Reduced chance for calculation errors
– Continuous refinement - design called for and
time permitted
– Reusable in future years
Add’l Computer Analysis
• Mathematical analysis entered into to EES
velocity takeoff 
2 Weight
S Ref
ρ C L,Design
12 2
, C L,Design  0.8 C L,Max
1
velocity stall

2
2 Weight


C

ρ
A
L,
Max
Projected


2 Methods for calculating takeoff distance – White paper, Fluids book (~5% difference)
[Similar for landing distance]
g
acceleraton
i

T hrust  Drag
 μ Weight  Lift
mean Weight
t akeoff f
2
velocity
t
akeoff
SG 
2 acceleraton
i
mean

Weight g 
T hrust

S0 
ln
2k
T
hrust

Drag
takeoff 


1
C D ρA Projected
2
2
Dragtakeoff  k velocit ytakeoff
k

Add’l Computer Analysis
• Mathematical analysis entered into to EES


C D  C D, Min, total  K1  K 2 C L  C L,Miin  , K1 
2
1
, K 2  0.0137,
π * WingAR* e
e  wing efficiency
Derived from digitalized thrust verses velocity curve
T hrust
 1  0.00755velocitytakeoff
T hruststatic
EngineHorsepower* 745.7
T hrust
* T hrust* velocitytakeoff
T hruststatic
Landing Gear
• Tricycle
• Conventional Tail
Dragger
• Tandem
Landing Gear
• Tail dragger
– Only uses two forward main wheels
• Reduces weight
• Reduces drag
– May be unstable when aircraft turns
• Tricycle
– Three wheel configuration
– Increases control on ground if equipped with
steerable front wheel
• Tandem usually used on large aircraft
Landing Gear
• Landing gear week
point in past
designs
• CAD Model for
Conventional
Landing Gear
Primary Assembly
• Aluminum support
• Nylon wheels
Landing Gear
• Simulate impact of a 30lbs plane dropping
from a stall
• Applied 80lbs to the surface simulating
attachment to the plane
Other Plane Features
• Boom length – too long can create
increased drag and instability
• Vertical stabilizer height – if too large,
the control surface induces a large
moment leading to instability
Led to a crash in 2002
Tail Design
• Vertical Stabilizer
– Single
– Dual Configuration
Tail Design
Stabilator
Stabilizer/Elevator
Demonstration
Click Here!
• Stabilizer/Elevator
– Fixed Stabilizer Portion
– Moveable Elevator
– Requires complex mechanism to move elevator
– Increases drag if not trimmed for the specific
cruising speed of the aircraft
• Stabilator
– Serves double duty as a stabilizer and elevator
– Rotates on aerodynamic center
– Mechanism to rotate stabilator will be less complex
than required for stabilizer/elevator
– Theoretically reduces drag
– Generally used in very fast aircraft
Prop Selection
• Propeller selection depends upon the
size of the engine
• Propeller will be purchased from
outside source
– Precise dimensions difficult to
manufacture by hand
– Higher grade materials with higher
strength to weight ratio available
commercially
Prop Selection
• Competition rules
mandate use of a
O.S. .61 FX engine
• 0.607 cu in
displacement
• Manufacturer
recommends the
following props:
– 11x8-10
– 12x7-11
– 12.5x6-7
Prop Selection
• Dynathrust Props (www.dynathrustprops.com)
sells injection molded fiberglass and
nylon propellers
• Higher strength to weight ratio than
wood props
• Prop manufacturer reccomends the
following props:
– 11x7-8
– 12x6
• A 12x8 prop costs only $3.00
• Manufacturing labor time cost will
also be saved
Materials
•
•
•
•
•
•
Balsa wood
Injection molded fiberglass and nylon
Light metal, such as aluminum
Heat shrink monocoat for wing
Rip-stop Nylon
Carbon fiber tubing
Schedule Update
Conclusions
• Digitalized data enables swift calculations in EES
• Design team has evaluated past difficulties
• Wing design is on schedule
– Select final wing profile
– Select monoplane or flying wing
• Landing gear will be selected when plane design is
finalized
– Monoplane = Conventional Tail Dragger
– Flying Wing = Tricycle
• Tail will consist of a single vertical stabilizer, exact
shape to be determined when wing design is
complete
• Prop will be outsourced to save time and money
We Welcome Your
Questions and Feedback
Thank You
References
• http://students.sae.org/competitions/aerodesign/east
• http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/performance/landing.h
tml
• http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/wingdesign/wingparam
s.html
• http://www.profili2.com/eng/default.htm
• http://www.uoguelph.ca/~antoon/websites/air.htm
• http://www.angelfire.com/ar2/planes2/links.html
• http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/2716/i
ndex.html
• http://www.winfoil.com/