AAE 451 Senior Design – Critical Design Review Aerial Surveying Plane (ASP) Scott Bird Mike Downes Kelby Haase Grant Hile Cyrus Sigari Sarah Umberger Jen Watson

Aerial Surveying Plane (ASP) Walk Around Flaperons Tail Dragger Air Data Boom Tractor Engine Avionics Pod December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review ASP Major Dimensions December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Preview Goals and Final Design Table Propulsion Aerodynamics Structures and Pod Stability and Control Cost Summary December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Design Challenge & Mission Specifications “Design a remotely piloted aircraft capable of carrying a large avionics pod” – Mission Specification Possible applications Architectural Surveying Crop Surveying Mission Profile December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Final Design and Goals Table ALL Design Goals Were Met! December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Constraint Diagram W/SHP = 14.5 lbf/SHP W/S = 1.8 lbf/ft2 December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Propulsion

ASP Critical Design Review Propulsion Engine Selection Propeller Selection Engine Performance December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Engine Specifications OS Max 1.6 FX Cost: $270 Gravity fed fuel system Weight: 2 lb Uses glow plug RPM Range 1,800-10,000 3.7 HP at 9,000 RPM Side exhaust muffler with rotatable exhaust outlet Comes with illustrated instructions booklet with parts list and OS decal  www.towerhobbies.com December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Engine Selection 3.6 HP required (from constraint diagram) December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Propeller Specifications Zinger 18x6 Pro-Zinger Wood Propeller Price = $18.99 Material: Wood www.towerhobbies.com December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Propeller Selection Propeller sized for takeoff conditions Takeoff Velocity = 39 ft/s Engine at Full Throttle Chose best combination of pitch and diameter (represented by circles) to meet the power required Propeller Choice: 18x6 December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Engine System Performance Verify takeoff conditions are met Note: Static Thrust used for the first 1.1 seconds December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Takeoff Analysis Results x = 95 ft Note: Static Thrust used for the first 1.1 seconds December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Aerodynamics

Aerodynamics and Flight Performance Airfoil Sections and Geometry Aerodynamic mathematical model Flight Performance December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Airfoil Geometry Wing Section Horizontal and Vertical Tail Sections December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Wing Section Wing Airfoil NACA 2412 Aspect Ratio 7 Span 14 (ft) Chord 2 (ft) Planform Area 28 (ft2) Taper Ratio 0 Dihedral 0 (deg) Sweep Angle 0 (deg) December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Horizontal Tail Geometry Airfoil NACA 0012 Aspect Ratio 5 Span 7 (ft) Chord (average) 1.38 (ft) Planform Area 9.64 (ft2) Taper Ratio 0.8 Sweep Angle 5 (deg) December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Vertical Tail Geometry Airfoil NACA 0012 Aspect Ratio 2 Span 2.8 (ft) Chord (average) 1.38 (ft) Planform Area 3.9 (ft2) Taper Ratio 0.73 Sweep Angle 10 (deg) December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Aircraft Aerodynamic Model & Flight Performance CL, CD, CM Maximum Loiter Endurance Best Climb Angle Takeoff Angle of Attack Stall Speed December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Aerodynamic Model Coefficient of Lift [α & δe in rad-1] Drag Coefficient Pitching Moment Coefficient [α & δe in rad-1] December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Lift Coefficient December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Drag Polar December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Pitching Moment Coefficient December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Aircraft Maximum Loiter Endurance E = 28.7 minutes DR&O requirement E > 15 minutes 50 oz fuel tank Vmin power = 38.6 ft/s ηp = 0.75 (@ 4000 rpm) December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Aircraft Climb Angle γ = 16.4o DR&O requirement γ > 5.5o Flying at Velocity for minimum power require 38.6 ft/s Propeller Efficiency = 0.4 CL = 1.25 10o flap deflection December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Rotation Angle of Attack From CL vs. α plot CL = 1.25 10o flap deflection December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Stall Speed Vstall = 30.3 ft/s DR&O requirement Vstall < 30 ft/s V min power = 38 ft/s Vtakeoff = 39 ft/s Provides good cushion for pilot December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Structures and Pod

Structural Attributes Light weight Mostly Spruce, Balsa, and Aluminum Easy to build Simplistic Fuselage Transportable Detachable Wing Pod Easy to Attach and Reattach Space for Pod Redesign December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Light Weight: Careful Material Selection Balsa Composite Spruce Rubber Aluminum December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Ease of Manufacture: Simple Design Solid Material Longerons Aerodynamic Shaping Only 55 Major components! December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Transportable: Removable Wing Engine Fuel Tank Wing Attachments Longest Dimension 14 ft December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Boom Attachment December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Variable Pod: Simplistic and Dynamic Support Aluminum Tubes Spacers Expandable Aerodynamic Shaping Camera Window Protection From Crash Landing December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Landing Gear Characteristics Tail Dragger Large prop clearance for improved rough surface operation Improved forward camera clearance due to lack of front landing gear Reduced drag and weight due to smaller landing gear in the rear December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Landing Gear Design Main Gear Modeled after a solid spring for vertical dissipation of impact energy Attached by shear bolts at non-crucial support member Dimensions: Aluminum 7075-T6 Beam thickness: ⅛ in Beam width: ½ in Total height (including 3” wheels): 0.7 ft Total weight: 2.59 lbs Tail Gear Wheel size: 2 inches December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Landing Gear Benefits Simplicity Propeller clearance: Tail down: 1.13 ft Tail up: 0.94 ft Failure of the main gear structural member is designed to occur at 5Gs of force on one wheel strut ~260 lbs December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Stability and Control

ASP Critical Design Review Dynamics and Control Tail Sizing Control Surface Sizing Static Stability Dynamic Stability December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Control Surfaces Vertical Tail Svt = 4.2 ft2 Sr/Svt= 0.42 Horizontal Tail Sht = 8.2 ft2 Se/Sht = 0.46 December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Control Surfaces Flaperons Dual Function Reduce stall speed Provides control in roll axis Sa/Sw = 0.10 December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Center of Gravity (CG) Range Refined CG envelope 2.66 to 2.86 ft CG location = 2.75 ft aft Static Margin = 16% Static Margin as a function of CG TOO STABLE CG RANGE MARGINALY STABLE December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Lateral-Directional Static Stability Weathercock Stability Positive yawing moment, decreases sideslip disturbance Predator Code determined iterativelly Svt= 4.2 ft2 Typically 0.06 to 0.2 December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Lateral-Directional Static Stability Dihedral Effect Designed to create rolling moment in the opposite direction of a dropped wing Due to increase in lift on the downward wing 0 degrees dihedral Clbeta = -0.15 Typically -0.09 to -0.30 December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Longitudinal Dynamic Stability Response after 10 degree Elevator step input Short period response Phugoid response December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Dynamics and Control Final Words Aircraft is stable Dynamically Statically Flight control surface sized to promote adequate flight control Variable CG location while maintaining adequate SM December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Cost

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Engineering 1150 Hours At $100/hr. Tooling (estimate) 605 Hours At $102/hr. Manufacturing (estimate) 364 Hours At $94/hr. Quality Control (estimate) 48 Hours At $85/hr. December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Flyaway Costs Development Support Costs $ 35,463 Manufacturing Materials Costs (Airframe, Propulsion,and Avionics) $ 1450 Payload Costs $ 12,322 December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Cost Breakdown December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

$ 264,622.57 Purchase price = RDT&E + flyaway cost Purchase Price December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Summary

Aerial Surveying Plane (ASP) Walk Around Flaperons Tail Dragger Air Data Boom Tractor Engine Avionics Pod December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Final Design and Goals Table Simple design for ease of construction Detachable wing for ease of transportation Detachable pod for diverse mission capability Designed to take-off from conventional runways and unimproved ground December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Questions? Aerial Surveying Plane (ASP)

Propulsion Aerodynamics Structures Stability and Control Cost Appendix Propulsion Aerodynamics Structures Stability and Control Cost

Propulsion Appendix

Putting EOMs into MATLAB Put state space EOMs into MATLAB Used ode45 command to integrate EOMs Inputs to the code are initial conditions for position and velocity Used x(0) = 0ft and v(0) = 1ft/s to eliminate singularities Code output position and velocity as a function of time Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Output from EOM integration W/S = 1.8 lbf/ft2 ρ = 0.023 slug/ft3 CLmaxTO = 1.25 Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Cruise Analysis Results Set Thrust = Drag Velocity = 50 ft/s RPM ~ 3580 Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Maximum Efficiency Analysis Results Velocity = 50 ft/s Efficiency = 76% Advance Ratio (J) = 0.46 1/rev RPM ~4350 Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Cruise Conditions J = 0.46 1/rev Velocity = 50 ft/s RPM ~4350 CP = 0.0111 CT = 0.0183 Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Alternate Cruise Conditions Vary velocity and RPM to find maximum efficiency Maximum efficiency occurs at J = 0.46 1/rev Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review EOM file in MATLAB Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Updated chord distribution in gold.m 0.7353 inches 8.17 inches Divided picture of propeller into tenth of a Radius sections Red box is 9% of the Radius (default in gold.m) Yellow boxes were measured at each tenth of a Radius Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Updated chord distribution in gold.m Chord length of each yellow box used to calculate c/R for each 1/10th of a Radius New chord distribution put into MATLAB code Modified gold.m ran to find new propeller Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Choosing a new propeller (again!) Some of the larger diameters will not work at all! Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Choosing a new propeller (again!) Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Aerodynamics Appendix

ASP Critical Design Review Flaps and Lift Clmax = 1.44 Used method outlined in Raymer for CLmax with flaps CLmax = CLmax + ΔCLmax ΔCLmax =0.9 * ΔClmax * (Sflap/Sref) ΔClmax was estimated using Table 12.2 (Raymer) Assumed that flap has small slot (from model expert), slotted flap approximate contribution ΔClmax = 1.3 CLmax = 1.8 (with flaps) Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Structures Appendix

ASP Critical Design Review Weight Item Weights (lbf) Prop 0.25 Engine 2.04 Firewall 0.08 Fuel Tank with Feul 2.44 Reciever 0.11 Battery 0.21 Wing 10.17 Pod 20.00 Data Boom 0.94 Servo S3001 0.10 S3104 Tail 3.20 Longerons 6.19 Gear Support 0.34 Joust 0.35 Pod Support 2.67 Front Landing gear 2.29 Rear Landing gear Aero Structs 0.32 Feul Tank support 0.31 Total weight 52.67 Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Close up Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review V-n diagram Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Tail Boom Cross Section Properties Compare Cross-Sections to Minimize Weight Two Rectangles Box Beam Circular c h t x y d Back to Appendix Two Rectangles Box Beam Circular Wall thickness (in) ½ ¼ ¾ Height(in) 4 3.5 Distance Between(in) 2.5 N/A Weight (lbf) .69 .67 1.33 December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Boom Sizing Tail boom sizing requirements: support the maximum loading conditions Maximum elevator and rudder deflections Small angle of twist Small deflection Assumptions and Chooses 5g (5 times gravity) is maximum lift loading Boom support is fixed to fuselage Spruce Lel Lrdr Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Maximum Loading Maximum Lift of Rudder and Elevator Maximum Velocity Maximum Coefficient of Lift Maximum deflection Maximum Bending Moment Longest Moment arm Max bending at fixed end Lift Back to Appendix x December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Tail Boom Property Requirements My = maximum bending moment z=distance from centroid to farthest edge σxx = ultimate yielding stress (material property) Iy= Moment of Inertia of cross section Requirement: θ small degree at tip in Appendix Requirement: is small E=Young’s Modulus (material property) I=depends on cross section P L Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Stress Criteria Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Twist Criteria Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Tip Deflection Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Wing Box Design Sizing Criteria Maximum Bending Stress Iy>=My*z/σxx θ<1 degree at tip Deflection at tip <=2in 1/4c Lift c Lift Back to Appendix a b December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Wing Box Properties Aluminum Balsa Spruce Pine Front Web thickness (in) .12 .125 2.124 2.125 .66.75 .708 .75 Rear Web thickness (in) .024.025 .025 .12 .125 Wing Weight (lbf) Front Spar Only 9.25 9.28 5.75 7.6 Front Spar- Tip Deflection Limiting Criteria Rear Spar- Tip Rotation Limiting Criteria Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Final Wing Box Properties Material Spruce (lowest weight) Heights defined by airfoil Front Spar I-beam %20 chord Rear Spar Rectangle %60 chord .75in 2.88in 2.25in .125in 1.2in Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Performance of Wing Box Θ=.072 deg Tip deflection= 1.77 inches Total Wing Weight= Front Spar + Rear Spar + 15 Ribs =7.4401 lbs Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Pod Support My=q*L^2/12 My-maximum bending stress q=distributed load (1/2 pod weight) L=length Iy>=My*z/σxx q L Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Material Properties Property Aluminum Balsa Spruce Pine Max bending stress (lb/in^2) 47e3 2.2e3 5656 6.9e3 Shear Modulus (lb/in^2) 4e6 3.13e4 1.73e5 9.38e4 Young’s Modulus (lb/in^2) 10e6 .5e6 1.6e6 1.5e6 Density (lb/in^3) .0995 .0065 .0145 .0185 Back to Appendix ”Selection and use of Engineering Materials”, J.A. Charles December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Span-wise Loading Assumed Elliptical Loading Maximum at Root Max bending at root =245 lbf-ft Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Wing Box Properties (Rotation Requirements) Requirement: θ<1 degree at tip T=Lift*(distance to shear center) L=Half span dis=distance between spars tf hf hr tr Back to Appendix b December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Wing Tip Deflection for Aluminum Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Weight of Wing Structure (half span of front spar) Weight=density*Cross sectional area*length Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Stability and Control Appendix

ASP Critical Design Review D & C PDR CONTROL DEFLECTIONS Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Class 1 Flight Control Surface Sizing-Raymer Ailerons Typically span from 50% to 90% of the span Elevator Typically span from fuselage to 90% of span Rudder Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Flight Control Deflections Rudder NACA0012 Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review D & C PDR TAIL SIZING Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Trim Analysis Equation 16.4 Revisited Prelim Xht = 5 ft Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Trim Range Trim analysis completed for feasible CG range and flight speed range Prelim Xcg =2.56-2.99 ft (Will Change in Slide 21) CG moving Aft CG moving Aft Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review D & C PDR STATIC STABILITY Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Static Stability Required Static Stability in All 3 Principal Axis Longitudinal Static Stability Must Determine Lateral-Directional Static Stability Weathercock Stability Dihedral Effect Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Longitudinal Static Stability Positive Static Stability! Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Longitudinal Static Stability BIG PICTURE How does each component add (or subtract) from the stability of the aircraft? Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Static Margin Finding Static Margin Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Static Margin Finding Static Margin Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Static Margin How to choose? Xht = 5 ft Within Usable Region Find XCg TOO STABLE MARGINALY STABLE UNSTABLE Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Short period mode Short period mode of stability Poles: -2.3009 +- 2.631i Negative real part reveals stability Imaginary part reveals oscillatory nature Damping Ratio: 0.65829 Natural Frequency: 3.495 Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Phugoid mode Phugoid mode of stability Poles:-0.127 +- 1.075i Postive real part reveals unstable pole Imaginary part reveals oscillatory nature Damping Ratio: 0.0039745 Natural Frequency: 1.0751 Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

DutchRoll/Spiral mode Dutchroll mode of stability Poles: -0.798 +- 1.0907i Damping Ratio: -1 Natural Frequency: 1.35 Spiral mode of stability Poles: -0.0052 Damping Ratio: 1 Natural Frequency: 6.54 Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Rudder Input Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Directional Stability Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review Elevator Input Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Longitudinal Stability Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Flight Control Surfaces Sizing Empirical Homebuilt Aircraft Flight Control Dimensions used (Pg. 191 “Aircraft Design Vol 2” Roskam) Horizontal Tail Area = 8.2 ft2 Elevator Se Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Cost Appendix

ASP Critical Design Review Prices Chief Aircraft Inc website Aircraft Spruce website Wicks Aircraft Supply website Tower Hobbies website Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review