AAE 451 AERODYNAMICS QDR 2 TEAM 4 Jared Hutter, Andrew Faust, Matt Bagg, Tony Bradford, Arun Padmanabhan, Gerald Lo, Kelvin Seah November 6, 2003.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ashley Brawner Neelam Datta Xing Huang Jesse Jones
Advertisements

New Piper Aircraft Jet The following is an example of how Surfaces can be used to analyze an aircraft from little more than a low quality drawing copied.
AAE 451 Aircraft Design Aerodynamic Preliminary Design Review #2 Team Members Oneeb Bhutta, Matthew Basiletti, Ryan Beech, Mike Van Meter.
Aero Engineering 315 Lesson 15 3-D (Finite) Wings Part I.
DR2 Aerodynamic PDR II Aerodynamic Preliminary Design Review II “The 20 Hour Marathon” October 19, 2000 Presented By: Loren Garrison Team DR2 Chris Curtis.
Keith Hout Patrick Dempsey Bridget Fitzpatrick Heather Garber Jong Soo Mok Stability Control and Flight Performance PDR October 24, 2000.
Dynamics & Control PDR 1 Purdue University AAE 451 Fall 2006 Team 4 Tung Tran Matt Drodofsky Haris Md Ishak Matt Lossmann Mark Kock Ravi Patel Ki-bom Kim.
AAE 451 Aircraft Design Aerodynamic Preliminary Design Review #1
AME 441: Conceptual Design Presentation
Team 5 Dynamics & Control PDR 2 Presented By: Trent Lobdell Eamonn Needler Charles Reyzer.
Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level 1.
Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level 1.
ME403 Chapter 3 Wing Aerodynamics
Group 3 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane
Team 5 Aerodynamics QDR Presented By: Christian Naylor Charles Reyzer.
March 1, Aerodynamics 3 QDR Michael Caldwell Jeff Haddin Asif Hossain James Kobyra John McKinnis Kathleen Mondino Andrew Rodenbeck Jason Tang Joe.
Lesson 13 Airfoils Part II
Aero Engineering 315 Lesson 12 Airfoils Part I. First things first…  Recent attendance  GR#1 review  Pick up handout.
Aerodynamics QDR AAE451 – Team 3 October 9, 2003 Brian Chesko Brian Hronchek Ted Light Doug Mousseau Brent Robbins Emil Tchilian.
Team 5 Aerodynamics PDR Presented By: Christian Naylor Eamonn Needler Charles Reyzer.
Basic Aerodynamic Theory and Drag
Modern Equipment General Aviation (MEGA) Aircraft Progress Report Flavio Poehlmann-Martins & Probal Mitra January 11, 2002 MAE 439 Prof. R. Stengel Prof.
Team 5 Critical Design Review Trent Lobdell Ross May Maria Mullins Christian Naylor Eamonn Needler Charles Reyzer James Roesch Charles Stangle Nick White.
Real World Design Challenge
Team “Canard” September 19th, 2006
Group 10 Dimitrios Arnaoutis Alessandro Cuomo Gustavo Krupa Jordan Taligoski David Williams 1.
BASICS OF RC PLANE. Overview  What is RC Plane?  RC Planes’ Parts and their Role  How planes fly?  Concepts and Terminologies of RC Plane  Stability.
2D Airfoil Aerodynamics
1 Lecture 4: Aerodynamics Eric Loth For AE 440 A/C Lecture Sept 2009.
AAE 451 Aircraft Design First Flight Boiler Xpress November 21, 2000
1 Real World Design Challenge Aircraft Overview 24 Sep Mrs. McDaniel Dr. Chris Shearer,
Bridget Fitzpatrick Patrick Dempsey Heather Garber Keith Hout Jong Soo Mok Aerodynamics Preliminary Design Review #2 October 23, 2000.
AAE 451 AERODYNAMICS PDR 2 TEAM 4 Jared Hutter, Andrew Faust, Matt Bagg, Tony Bradford, Arun Padmanabhan, Gerald Lo, Kelvin Seah November 18, 2003.
Team 5 Aerodynamics QDR 2 Presented By: Christian Naylor Charles Reyzer.
February 24, Dynamics & Controls 1 PDR Michael Caldwell Jeff Haddin Asif Hossain James Kobyra John McKinnis Kathleen Mondino Andrew Rodenbeck Jason.
Theory of Flight All are demonstrated by the flight of the bird!
DR2 Aerodynamic PDR Aerodynamic Preliminary Design Review October 3, 2000 German National Holiday Presented By: Loren Garrison Team DR2 Chris Curtis Chris.
Modern Design Concept Chapter 10. Aerodynamic Research Contributions Propulsion Structural Design Monocoque structure Optimum location for the engine.
Airfoils. Airfoil Any surface that provides aerodynamic force through interaction with moving air Moving air Airfoil Aerodynamic force (lift)
Patrick Dempsey Bridget Fitzpatrick Heather Garber Keith Hout Jong Soo Mok Aerodynamics Preliminary Design Review #1 October 3, 2000.
Dynamics & Control PDR 2 Purdue University AAE 451 Fall 2006 Team 4 Eparr Tung (in my) Tran Matt Dwarfinthepantssky Nazim Haris Mohammad Ishak (no, it’s.
Beard & McLain, “Small Unmanned Aircraft,” Princeton University Press, 2012, Chapter 4: Slide 1 Chapter 4 Forces and Moments.
Dynamics & Controls PDR 2
STRUCTURES & WEIGHTS PDR 1
VEHICLE SIZING PDR AAE 451 TEAM 4
Airfoil Any surface that provides aerodynamic force through interaction with moving air Aerodynamic force (lift) Moving air Airfoil.
DYNAMICS & CONTROL PDR 1 TEAM 4
Dynamics & Controls PDR 1
Team 5 Final Design Review
PROPULSION PDR 2 AAE 451 TEAM 4
CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW
STRUCTURES & WEIGHTS PDR 2
Team 5 Final Design Review
Aether Aerospace AAE 451 September 27, 2006
Critical Design Review 24 March, 2005
Team “Canard” September 19th, 2006
DYNAMICS & CONTROL QDR 1 TEAM 4
COST QDR TEAM 4 Jared Hutter, Andrew Faust, Matt Bagg, Tony Bradford,
UAV Wing Design For Efficiency At Low Reynolds Numbers
Team 5 Aerodynamics PDR #2
DYNAMICS & CONTROL QDR 3 TEAM 4
PROPULSION QDR 1 AAE 451 TEAM 4
PROPULSION PDR 1 AAE 451 TEAM 4
Aerodynamics PDR # 2 AAE451 – Team 3 November 18, 2003
PROPULSION QDR 2 AAE 451 TEAM 4
Airfoils and Simulation
Aether Aerospace AAE 451 September 19, 2006
Dynamics & Controls PDR 2
Dynamics and Control PDR 1
STRUCTURES & WEIGHTS QDR 1
Presentation transcript:

AAE 451 AERODYNAMICS QDR 2 TEAM 4 Jared Hutter, Andrew Faust, Matt Bagg, Tony Bradford, Arun Padmanabhan, Gerald Lo, Kelvin Seah November 6, 2003

TEAM4 OVERVIEW Concept Review Wing and Tail Aerodynamic Parameters Aircraft Parameters 3-View Drawings of Aircraft Follow-Up Actions

TEAM4 CONCEPT REVIEW High Wing S = 47.8 ft 2 b = 15.5 ft, c = 3.1 ft AR = 5 Twin Booms 3 ft apart; 7.3 ft from Wing MAC to HT MAC Twin Engine 1.8 HP each Avionics Pod 20 lb; can be positioned front or aft depending on requirements Empennage Horizontal and Vertical Tails sized using modified Class 1 Approach (per D & C QDR 1)

TEAM4 WING & TAIL PARAMETERS Main WingHorz TailVert Tail Aspect Ratio Sweep Angle0010  Taper Ratio110.6 Dihedral Angle0  0  N.A. Incidence Angle2.5  -2.5  N.A. Maximum Lift Coefficient, C L max Zero Angle-of-Attack Lift Coefficient, C L Lift Curve Slope, C L  deg -1 Parasitic Drag Coefficient, C D Induced Drag Coefficient, C D i Zero Angle-of-Attack Moment Coefficient, C M Moment Curve Slope, C M  deg -1 Aircraft Wetted Area  ft 2

TEAM4 AIRCRAFT PARAMETERS Lift Coefficient C L = C L  *  + C L  e *  elevator + C L0 C L = (deg -1 )*  (deg -1 )*  elevator Lift Curve Slope C L  = f(C L  W, C L  HT,  HT,  w)   HT = Ratio of dynamic pressure. Mostly caused by propeller wash and velocity Downwash, w = Caused by main wing’s vortex flow on tail. Changes effective angle of attack for the tail. Positive Negative

TEAM4 AIRCRAFT PARAMETERS Lift Curve Slope for Elevator Deflection C L  e = f(elevator size, horizontal tail planform) Zero Angle of Attack Lift Coefficient C L0 = f(C L0W, C L0HT,  HT, incident angles)   HT = Ratio of dynamic pressure. Mostly caused by propeller wash and velocity Incident angles are for both main wing and horizontal tail

TEAM4 AIRCRAFT PARAMETERS Moment Coefficient C M = C M  *  + C M  e *  elevator + C M0 C M = (deg -1 )*  + ( )(deg -1 )*  elevator Moment Curve Slope C M  = f(dC M /dC L, C L )  dC M /dC L = f(CG, Aerodynamic Center of Aircraft)

TEAM4 AIRCRAFT PARAMETERS Zero Angle of Attack Moment Coefficient C M0 = f(C M0_W, C M0_HT [both about the CG]) LIFT WEIGHT Aerodynamic Center

TEAM4 AIRCRAFT PARAMETERS Aircraft C L and C M equations have velocity, altitude, and power setting embedded in them Tried different altitudes and velocities with both engines and a single engine Changes in C L and C M equations were less then Aircraft C L higher then wing C L, as a result of prop- wash and lift from the horizontal tail past some the angle of incidence

TEAM4 TOP VIEW 7.3 ft ft Aspect Ratio: ft 2.1 ft 3.1 ft SCALED 6.7 ft

TEAM4 PROFILE & FRONT VIEWS 3.1 ft ft 2.1 ft 1.8 ft SCALED

TEAM4 FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS Trim Diagrams Further verification of C L and C M data Update Dynamics & Controls group with regards to the change in control surfaces, and the changes in C L and C M

AAE 451 ?