1 Conceptual Design Review Presentation Joe Appel Todd

1 Conceptual Design Review Presentation Joe Appel Todd

1 Conceptual Design Review Presentation Joe Appel Todd Beeby Julie Douglas Konrad Habina Katie Irgens Jon Linsenmann David Lynch Dustin Truesdell 2 Outline Mission Statement Major Design Requirements Selected Aircraft Concept Results of Aircraft Sizing

Major Design Tradeoffs Aircraft Description Aerodynamic Design Details Performance Structures Weights and Balance Stability and Control Noise Cost Summary 3 Mission Statement Design an Environmentally Responsible Aircraft (ERA) that lowers noise, minimizes emissions, and reduces fuel burn

Utilize new technology to develop a competitive medium-size aircraft that meets the demands of transportation for continental market Deliver a business plan focused on capitalizing on growing markets Submit final design to NASA ERA College Student Challenge 4 Major Design Requirements NASA ERA Goals Large twin aisle reference configuration = Boeing 777-200LR 5 Major Design Requirements Market Goals 200 passengers Intra - Continental Range 3200 Nautical Miles Operability Maintenance Turnaround time Production and operating costs

6 Selected Aircraft Concept 7 Selected Aircraft Concept 8 Walk Around High Bypass Ratio Geared Turbofan Engines T-Tail for Stability Passenger Capacity for 200 Pax: 24 Bus., 182 Econ.

High Aspect Ratio, High Wing Fiber Laminate Core for Fuselage Structures Composite Materials 9 Walk Around Raked winglets Hybrid Laminar Flow Technology on wing surfaces

Cargo Capacity for 32 LD3 Containers Riblets Wheel tug Chevrons, Soft Vanes & Scarf Inlets 10 Design Features Active Hybrid Laminar Flow Control laminar flow on wing Fuel savings up to 10% Riblets In past have reduced drag by 8% Reduce fuel consumption by 3% Wheel Tug

Expected fuel savings of 13-21 lbs/min of taxi time Reduce foreign object damage (increased turbine efficiency=0.5-1.5% fuel savings) 11 Design Features Chevrons Reduce noise by 4dB Soft Vanes Reduce noise by 1 dB Landing Gear Fairings Reduce approach noise by 3dB GTF Reduce noise by up to 20dB Reduce Nox emissions by 50% below CAEP 6 12 Design Parameters Design Parameters Input W0/S

Value 137 lb/ft2 TSL/W0 AR t/c (CL)max BPR 0.21 18 6 0.17

0.1 2.5 10 13 Aircraft Sizing 14 Description of Sizing Code MATLAB iteration code to match gross weight 15 Modeling Assumptions and Approaches -Calibration factors Technology Effects Change

757-200 Calibration Empty Weight Fuel Weight +15% We + 5% Wf Composites Aircraft Weight -25% wing -25% fuselage GTF SFC Engine Weight -15% fuel consumption + 8% engine weight High AR Wings/

Raked Winglets Induced Drag -10% CDi Hybrid Laminar Flow over Wings Parasite Drag on Wing -20% CDp 16 Sizing Approach Empty Weight Statistical equations for components from Raymer Text Weights added to Payload & Fuel to estimate TOGW If fuel weight isnt sufficient, weights adjusted (iteration) Fuel Weight Segment fuel fractions using Range and Endurance eqns Drag

Component drag build-up Parasite, for each exposed aircraft component Induced, for wing and tail surfaces Wave, neglected for cruse Mach ~ 0.75 17 Tail Sizing Relate wing aspects to tail Wing yaw moments countered by wing span Pitching moments counted by wing mean chord Correlate using volume coefficients Equations 6.28 & 6.29 from Raymer 18 Sizing Approach Engine Modeling Engine sim1.7 used to model engines Code calibrated to CF6 series engine (<5% error) CF6 features calibrated to direct drive with geared turbofan features and efficiencies added Used the ratio of thrust available and thrust required to find a scale factor (SF = .92) Integrated this scale factor to scale down engine weight,

and length and diameter Also used this scale factor to scale thrust and SFC for engines 19 Modeling Assumptions and Approaches -Mission Modeling - Economic mission, 1000 nmi, best cruise efficiency - Breguet, Endurance, and Historical eqns used for fuel fraction -Fixed Design Parameters Input W0/S TSL/W0 AR t/c

(CL)max Value Unit 132.3 lb/ft2 0.192 -- 18 -- 6 deg 0.1 -- 2.26 -- 20

Validation and Calibration Validation using similar a/c: Boeing 757-200 & 767-200ER 757-200 validated for weight & drag components TOGW = 255000 lb, OEW = 127000 lb, Wfuel = 74510 lb Initial Sizing Component Weights Parameter Value Units Error Parameter Value Units Error W0 design

259240 lb 1% W0 design 260310 lb 2% We design 132260 lb -2% We design

122980 lb -3% Wf design 81580 lb 9% Wf design 79330 lb 6% 21 Design Trade-offs

22 Two Concepts Concept 1: Concept 2 (V): 23 Carpet plots: Concept 1 5 x 10 5 2.9 x 10 2.9 Carpet plot for Concept 1 Carpet plot for Concept 1 2.8 2.8 W (lbf) W toto(lbf)

2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 24 Carpet plots: Concept 1 Takeoff Field Length -- T/W = 0.253 Takeoff Field Length -- T/W = 0.253 T/W = 0.379 T/W = 0.379 T/W = 0.316 T/W = 0.316 7000

7000 7000 7000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 5000 5000 4000 4000 4000 4000 3000 3000

100 100 3000 3000 100 100 6 6 150 200 150 2 200 W/S (lbf/ft )2 W/S (lbf/ft ) Top of Climb -- T/W = 0.195 Top of Climb -- T/W = 0.195 2 0 4

4 P (ft/sec) Ps s(ft/sec) P (ft/sec) Ps s(ft/sec) 4 6 2 0 -2 -2 -4 -4 50 50 100 150

100 150 W/S [lbf/ft 2]2 W/S [lbf/ft ] 200 200 2 0 5000 5000 4000 4000 3000 3000 100 100 150 200 150 2 200 W/S (lbf/ft )2

W/S (lbf/ft ) T/W = 0.244 T/W = 0.244 6 6 4 4 P (ft/sec) Ps s(ft/sec) 5000 5000 S (ft) Sg g(ft) S (ft) Sg g(ft) S (ft)

Sg g(ft) 7000 7000 2 0 -2 -2 -4 -4 50 50 100 150 100 150 W/S [lbf/ft 2]2 W/S [lbf/ft ] 200 200

2 0 150 150 W/S (lbf/ft 2)2 W/S (lbf/ft ) T/W = 0.293 T/W = 0.293 200 200 6 4 2 0 -2 -2 -4 -4 50 50

100 150 100 150 W/S [lbf/ft2]2 W/S [lbf/ft ] 200 200 25 Carpet plots: Concept 1 1500 1500 100 100 150 200 150 200 2 W/S (lbf/ft )2

W/S (lbf/ft ) 2000 2000 1500 1500 100 100 T/W = 0.230 T/W = 0.230 2500 2500 S (ft) Sb b(ft) 2000 2000 S (ft) Sb b(ft) S (ft)

Sb b(ft) Landing Field Length -- T/W = 0.184 Landing Field Length -- T/W = 0.184 2500 2500 2500 2500 150 200 150 200 W/S (lbf/ft 2)2 W/S (lbf/ft ) T/W = 0.276 T/W = 0.276 2000 2000 1500 1500 100

100 150 200 150 200 W/S (lbf/ft 2)2 W/S (lbf/ft ) 26 Carpet plots: Concept 2 (V) 5 x 10 5 1.95 x 10 1.95 Carpet plot for Concept 2 Carpet plot for Concept 2 1.9 1.9 W (lbf)

W toto(lbf) 1.85 1.85 1.8 1.8 1.75 1.75 1.7 1.7 1.65 1.65 27 Carpet plots: Concept 2 (V) Takeoff Field Length -- T/W = 0.195 Takeoff Field Length -- T/W = 0.195 6000 6000 4000

4000 50 50 50 50 100 150 100 150 2 W/S (lbf/ft )2 W/S (lbf/ft Top of Climb -- T/W) = 0.195 0 5 P (ft/sec) Ps s(ft/sec) P (ft/sec) Ps s(ft/sec)

0 -5 -5 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 W/S [lbf/ft 2]2 W/S [lbf/ft ] 4000 4000 100 100 W/S (lbf/ft 2)2 W/S (lbf/ft ) 150 150 50 50 T/W = 0.244

T/W = 0.244 Top of Climb -- T/W = 0.195 5 6000 6000 0 5 0 100 100 W/S (lbf/ft 2)2 W/S (lbf/ft ) 150 150 T/W = 0.293 T/W = 0.293 5

P (ft/sec) Ps s(ft/sec) 4000 4000 8000 8000 S (ft) S g g(ft) 6000 6000 5 T/W = 0.293 T/W = 0.293 8000 8000 S (ft) S g g(ft) S (ft)

S g g(ft) 8000 8000 T/W = 0.244 T/W = 0.244 -5 -5 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 W/S [lbf/ft 2]2 W/S [lbf/ft ] 0 5 0 -5 -5 50 100 150 200

50 100 150 200 W/S [lbf/ft 2]2 W/S [lbf/ft ] 28 Carpet plots: Concept 2 (V) Landing Field Length -- T/W = 0.195 Landing Field Length -- T/W = 0.1952200 2200 2200 2200 1600 1600 100 100 W/S (lbf/ft 2)2 W/S (lbf/ft ) 150 150

1800 1800 1600 1600 1400 1400 50 50 T/W = 0.293 T/W = 0.293 2000 2000 S (ft) S b b(ft) 1800 1800 1400 1400 50 50

2200 2200 2000 2000 S (ft) S b b(ft) S (ft) S b b(ft) 2000 2000 T/W = 0.244 T/W = 0.244 100 100 W/S (lbf/ft 2)2 W/S (lbf/ft ) 150 150

1800 1800 1600 1600 1400 1400 50 50 100 100 W/S (lbf/ft 2)2 W/S (lbf/ft ) 150 150 29 Carpet Plots-Results TOGW W/S

T/W AR Concept 1 243,000 144 0.23 10 Concept 2 (Freestream) 166,000 137 0.21 18 lbf

lb/ft2 -- -- Unit 30 Other trade-offs Safety Issues Double Bubble Rear Mounted Engines Tip over Water landing Manufacturing Issues Double Bubble High Aspect Ratio Wing 31 Aircraft Description

32 Free Stream Concept 33 Exterior Dimensions 17.8 138 151 17.5 34 Free Stream: Interior 164 111 510 164

178 35 Free Stream: Interior Business Class 2-2-2 layout 20 seats 19 aisles 36 Free Stream: Interior Economy Class 2-3-2 layout 18 seats 19 aisles 37 Free Stream: Interior Inclusive Tour/High Density 2-4-2 layout 16 seats 17 aisles

38 Free Stream: LOPA 39 Free Stream: CARGO Cargo Hold Configuration Space Allocation for Landing Gear Capacity for 28 LD3 Containers 40 Free Stream: CARGO 41 Aerodynamic Design 42 Airfoil Selection

Airfoil selection t/c = 12% Max camber = 0.04 Max camber location = 0.5 Airfoil Cp Distribution 43 Aerodynamic Design Details/ Justification High lift devices No slats due to laminar flow Double slotted fowler flaps for maximum lift Angle (deg) (CL)max Takeoff

20 2 Landing 50 2.5 44 Drag Polar 45 Aerodynamic Design Details/ Justification Drag Build-up Drag split into components for fuselage, wing, tail, landing gear, and nacelle For each component the parasite and induced drag was calculated Wave drag neglected due to drag divergence estimated to be larger than cruise mach number

46 Performance 47 Performance V-n Diagram V-N Diagram Max load factor at cruise = 2.47 Min load factor = -1 5 4 3 2 Load Factor Cruise Velocity at 741 ft/sec Positive Lift Curve

n=1 Cruising LoadFactor Negative Lift Curve Cruise Velocity 1 0 -1 -2 -3 0 100 200 300 400 500 Velocity (ft/s) 600

700 800 48 Engine Description 49 Propulsion Geared Turbo Fan (31,500 lbf SLS) 15% fuel savings, 8% weight penalty wrt DD Inlet Diameter-80 in. Bypass Ratio-10:1 Fan Compression ratio-1.4:1 Compressor pressure ratio-22:1 Turbine max temperature-2500 R Dry weight-4800 lbs http://www.aric.or.kr/trend/history/images/ propellant/pw_geared_turbofan.jpg Assumed efficiencies-inlet pressure recovery(.99), fan(.85),compressor(.88), burner (1.0),turbine (.90),nozzle(.98)

Secondary airflow bleed (oil, hydraulic, and environmental control systems)-3% of mass flow rate 50 Propulsion Thrust-Veloctiy Diagram @ 35,000ft Thrust-Veloctiy Diagram @ 38,000ft 14000 13000 Thrust Required Thrust Available 13000 X: 517 Y: 1.163e+004 11000 11000 10000

10000 9000 Thrust [lb] Thrust [lb] 12000 9000 7000 7000 6000 6000 5000 150

200 250 300 350 400 Velocity [ft/s] 450 500 550 600 X: 485.7 Y: 1.002e+004 8000 8000 5000 100

Thrust Required Thrust Available 12000 4000 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Velocity [ft/s] 450 500 550 600

51 Structural Design 52 Structures Major Load Paths 53 Structures Major Load Paths Compression Tension 54 Bending Moment (lbf) Shear = 2.5E6 lbf

Moment = -7.5E7 lbf Deflection = -1.2ft Deflection (ft) Wing Fuselage Intersection Shear Force(lbf) Structures 6 4 ShearDiagram x 10 2 0 0

10 20 30 40 Wing Length (ft) BendingDiagram 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 Wing Length (ft)

WingDeflection 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 Wing Length (ft) 50 60 70 7

0 x 10 -5 -10 0 -1 -2 55 Structures Wing Fuselage Intersection Wing box Combines best of two material systems Metal: isotropy, plasticity, shear, bending, impact, damage Composite: fatigue, tensile strength AHS Concept CentrAL with Glare2

FML Core and three layers of 1.4mm thick 2024-T3 sheets 40% higher direction strength, and 20% weight savings (based off of AL 2024 T-3) Upper wing: Metallic Design with advanced alloys (Al-Li 2099) Ribs: Single piece of machined rib from advanced alloy plate or integral extrusion Spars: Multi-piece spars 56 Materials Pros: Weight reduction Up to 20% empty weight production compared to aluminum High corrosion resistance Resistance to damage from fatigue Overall reduction in operating cost

Cons: High Cost Labor Intensive Hard to fabricate http://www.appropedia.org/File:Composites01.jpg 57 Weights and Balance 58 Weights and Balance Weight statement Empty weight prediction method Component weight breakdown Fuselage 20000 lbs Wing 17000 lbs

Engine 4700 lbs Horiz Tail 2500 lbs Vert Tail 1400 lbs Furnishings 1300 lbs Nacelle 3200 lbs Empty Wt Fraction: 0.5036

Landing Gear 3300 lbs TOGW: 167000 lbs Avionics 1800 lbs OEW: 86000 lbs Electrical 1000 lbs Fuel Wt: 26000 lbs APU

600 lbs Payload Wt: 55000 lbs Instruments 500 lbs Hydraulics 300 lbs Crew Wt: 1800 lbs Engine Ctrls 90 lbs 59

Center of Gravity & Static Margin The Center of Gravity 58.8 from the nose Aerodynamic Center was found to be 67.2 from nose Static Margin is calculuted to be -8.4 60 Landing Gear 61 Landing Gear High Wing concept called for an atypical landing gear configuration Final design allows landing gear to extend 5 feet below belly of airplane Main gear stance is 19 feet 62 Landing Gear 63

Landing Gear 64 Landing Gear 65 Landing Gear 66 Noise 67 Reducing Noise Geared Turbo Fan Engine Potential Noise Reduction of 20 dB

Chevrons Soft Vanes Scarf Inlets Landing Gear Fairings 68 Approach to Noise Engines are primary source of noise Exterior (community noise) measured at 3 locations Takeoff Sideline Approach http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/noise/noise.html 69 Determining Noise Stage 3 requirements based on TOGW Stage 4 requirements: -10dB cumulative below stage 3 Our goal: -42dB cumulative below stage 4 Stage 3

Stage 4 TOGW 168,500 Takeoff [EPNdB] Sideline [EPNdB] Approach [EPNdB] Cumulative [EPNdB] 92 89 97 94 99

96 288 279 70 Determining Noise Using baseline engine (CF-6), adjust for thrust Adjust for number of engines Adjust for distance (takeoff and sideline) Adjust throttle setting Correction factor for EPN dB Airframe noise Account for GTF Account for other technologies 71 Noise Estimates GTF reduces noise by 15 dB Our Goal: 237 EPN dB Stage 3

Stage 4 Freestream Freestream+ GTF Freestream+ other tech TOGW 166,500 Takeoff [EPNdB] Sideline [EPNdB] Approach [EPNdB] Total [EPNdB] Reduction below Stage 4

92 89 86 81 76 97 94 87 82 81 99 96

96 91 87 288 279 269 254 244 -- -- -10 -25 -35

72 Cost Prediction 73 Cost Used the RAND DAPCA VI Model to model the RDT&E and production cost (Millions) Engineering, Tooling, Manufacturing, Materials, Flight Test, Quality Control, Development, and production cost Used Liebecks Method to model the variable costs of the airplane (Millions per year) Fuel Cost, Flight Crew Cost, Maintenance Costs, Landing Fees, Depreciation, Interest, and Insurance 74 Cost Market Plan estimated 200 new planes to be built in the first five years Break Even price met after 220 airplanes are sold for the purchase price

Assumptions: Depreciation of 10% per year 4 flight test aircrafts 20% manufacturing cost increase for composites 4000 flight hours per year 625 trips per year Cost Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Fixed Cost for Aircraft Section $ (Millions) Engineering 1,951

Tooling 1,635 Manufacturing 4,734 Development 287 Flight Test 73 Materials 93 Engine 20 Avionics

4 Production Price 83 Purchase Price 99 76 Cost Operating and Maint. Costs Variable Costs per year Section Fuel $ (Millions) per year 38.51 Crew

.004 Airframe Maint. .753 Engine Maint. .364 Landing Fees .194 Depreciation 6.39 Interest 24.66 Insurance .224

Operating Costs 71.11 Life Cycle Cost 1506 Summary 78 Summary of Final Design Input W0/S Value 137 lb/ft2 ~200 Pax Capacity

Max. Range of 3200 nmi Safer Design Easier to manufacture Faster turnaround time TSL/W0 AR t/c (CL)max BPR 0.21

18 6 0.17 0.1 2.26 10 79 Compliance Matrix Determined the Landing and Takeoff field lengths then compared to thresholds and targets values. Cruise efficiency found after adding engine to sizing code. 80

Next Steps Stability and Control Drag polars Secondary systems integration Produce written report Submit to NASA Competition On a scale of one to ten, 82

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • U.S. History: Modernization, Imperialism, and Progressivism

    U.S. History: Modernization, Imperialism, and Progressivism

    Imperialism and Expansion. Imperialism: stronger nations built empires by militarily, politically, and economically dominating weaker ones. Britain had the largest empire ("the sun never sets on the British Empire"), but France, Russia, and Germany also had colonies around the world...
  • Click to edit Master text styles Click to

    Click to edit Master text styles Click to

    Al Simpson Paul Porter Al Simpson Paul Porter Bob Bogan & Norm Thoreson Greg Bielawski Steve Will * Click to edit Master text styles Ralph Burnett William Scanlon Bill Houston Bill Eickelberg Quince Fleming Bill McLaughlin Gerald Snyder Bob Russell...
  • Othello - Jessamine County

    Othello - Jessamine County

    Setting for Act 1: Venice, Italy. According to Venetian law, the Venetian Republic's army general was required to be a foreigner. Venetian society would admire Othello for his valor and leadership but still recoil at the notion of his marrying...
  • Von ECM Enterprise Content Management zu Social Business

    Von ECM Enterprise Content Management zu Social Business

    Dr. Uwe Crenze. Geschäftsführer „Die . Kombination aus einer Enterprise Search und einer . kollaborativen. Plattform (wie SharePoint) ist insbesondere für das Wissensmanagement eine sehr mächtige und praktikable Lösung
  • Figurative Language

    Figurative Language

    (e)- "Hoover vacuum cleaners", 1950s advertisement "As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives..." (i)- Nursery rhyme, "As I was going to St Ive" Imagery Creating a picture in the reader's mind using words...
  • Analytic Trigonometry - Valencia

    Analytic Trigonometry - Valencia

    Trig form of complex number. Z = x + iy then z = rcos(x) + irsin(y) In pre - calculus or calculus you will explore the relation between this form of z and the form z = reiө
  • At a loss for words? 214 Evans Library

    At a loss for words? 214 Evans Library

    Research Posters. The topic today is research posters. I will be giving you tips on writing and designing a poster and then show you how to use PowerPoint to make one.
  • Decimals - roboticsdewitt.weebly.com

    Decimals - roboticsdewitt.weebly.com

    Review: Power Level The default power level for the NXT is 75 percent. You can change the power level by using the slider bar or by typing in a number. Review: Gears Are Taskbot's wheels directly attached to its motors?...