PROPULSION QDR 2 AAE 451 TEAM 4

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Airplane Flight: X-Plane in the Classroom Power Loading Ratio of the plane’s weight divided by power.
Advertisements

AAE 451 Aircraft Design Aerodynamic Preliminary Design Review #2 Team Members Oneeb Bhutta, Matthew Basiletti, Ryan Beech, Mike Van Meter.
DR2 Aerodynamic PDR II Aerodynamic Preliminary Design Review II “The 20 Hour Marathon” October 19, 2000 Presented By: Loren Garrison Team DR2 Chris Curtis.
AAE 451 Aircraft Design Aerodynamic Preliminary Design Review #1
Aerodynamics PDR #1. Objective To examine airfoil choices To examine wing shape choices Structural and Manufacturing Concerns.
Critical Design Review AAE490 Project 1 March 2003 Nicholas Baker Brian Chernish Andrew Faust Doug Holden Mara Prentkowski Nicholas Setar.
Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level 1.
October 23, 2003Propulsion QDR1 Scott Bird Mike Downes Kelby Haase Grant Hile Cyrus Sigari Sarah Umberger Jen Watson.
Propulsion QDR #2 AAE451 – Team 3 November 20, 2003 Brian Chesko Brian Hronchek Ted Light Doug Mousseau Brent Robbins Emil Tchilian.
DR2 Propulsion PDR I Preliminary Design Review II October 17, 2000 Presented By: Mark Blanton Team DR2 Chris Curtis Loren Garrison Chris Peters Jeff Rodrian.
Group 3 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane
March 1, Aerodynamics 3 QDR Michael Caldwell Jeff Haddin Asif Hossain James Kobyra John McKinnis Kathleen Mondino Andrew Rodenbeck Jason Tang Joe.
Team 5 Aerodynamics PDR Presented By: Christian Naylor Eamonn Needler Charles Reyzer.
Dane BatemaBenoit Blier Drew Capps Patricia Roman Kyle Ryan Audrey Serra John TapeeCarlos Vergara Team 1: Propulsion QDR 2 Team 1 October 3, 2006.
MAE 4261: AIR-BREATHING ENGINES
Aero Design Group 10 Dimitrios Arnaoutis Alessandro Cuomo
Michael DeRosa Master of Engineering Final Project
Team 5 Critical Design Review Trent Lobdell Ross May Maria Mullins Christian Naylor Eamonn Needler Charles Reyzer James Roesch Charles Stangle Nick White.
Team “Canard” September 19th, 2006
Craig Kohring, Pat Tice, Sean Dineen, Mark Gasser James Pallardy, Katie Schipf, AJ Dayvie.
2015 SAE Aero East Design Team 2015 SAE Aero Design East Team Mid-Term Status Report (3/5/2015)
1 Conceptual Design Review 4/17/07 Team 1 John Horst John Horst Jared Odle Jared Odle Keith Fay Keith Fay Boyce Dauby Boyce Dauby Andrew Kovach Andrew.
Propulsion PDR #2 AAE451 – Team 3 November 11, 2003 Brian Chesko Brian Hronchek Ted Light Doug Mousseau Brent Robbins Emil Tchilian.
Mensa XE (Extra Efficiency) High Efficiency Family Airplane
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,
AAE 451 AERODYNAMICS PDR 2 TEAM 4 Jared Hutter, Andrew Faust, Matt Bagg, Tony Bradford, Arun Padmanabhan, Gerald Lo, Kelvin Seah November 18, 2003.
DR2 Aerodynamic PDR Aerodynamic Preliminary Design Review October 3, 2000 German National Holiday Presented By: Loren Garrison Team DR2 Chris Curtis Chris.
Dane BatemaBenoit Blier Drew Capps Patricia Roman Kyle Ryan Audrey Serra John TapeeCarlos Vergara Team 1: Propulsion QDR 3 Team 1 October 17, 2006.
AAE 451 AERODYNAMICS QDR 2 TEAM 4 Jared Hutter, Andrew Faust, Matt Bagg, Tony Bradford, Arun Padmanabhan, Gerald Lo, Kelvin Seah November 6, 2003.
STRUCTURES & WEIGHTS PDR 1
VEHICLE SIZING PDR AAE 451 TEAM 4
Key Performance Characteristics
AAE 451 Senior Design – Critical Design Review
DYNAMICS & CONTROL PDR 1 TEAM 4
Aerodynamics PDR AAE451 – Team 3 October 21, 2003
Dynamics & Controls PDR 1
Propulsion QDR 2 Team #3 Presented by: Greg Davidson Etan Karni.
Team 5 Final Design Review
PROPULSION PDR 2 AAE 451 TEAM 4
Team 5 Propulsion PDR Scott Bird Mike Downes Kelby Haase Grant Hile
CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW
STRUCTURES & WEIGHTS PDR 2
Team 5 Final Design Review
Propulsion 2 QDR AAE 451: Team 2 Michael Caldwell Jeff Haddin
Cargo Airplane Challenge
Propulsion QDR 2 Team #3 Presented by: Greg Davidson Etan Karni.
Propulsion PDR AAE 451 Fall 2006 Team Whishy Washy Tung Tran Mark Koch
Team 5 Vehicle Propulsion PDR 1
Team 5 Vehicle Propulsion PDR 1
John Apostol, Chris Grupido, Douglas Klutzke
Aether Aerospace AAE 451 September 27, 2006
Propulsion PDR AAE 451: Team 2 Michael Caldwell Jeff Haddin
Team 5 – Propulsion QDR #2 Scott Bird Mike Downes Kelby Haase
Team “Canard” September 19th, 2006
DYNAMICS & CONTROL QDR 1 TEAM 4
COST QDR TEAM 4 Jared Hutter, Andrew Faust, Matt Bagg, Tony Bradford,
F-22 & CF-105 Flight Performance Simulation
Team 5 Aerodynamics PDR #2
Aether Aerospace AAE 451 September 19, 2006
DYNAMICS & CONTROL QDR 3 TEAM 4
PROPULSION QDR 1 AAE 451 TEAM 4
PROPULSION PDR 1 AAE 451 TEAM 4
Team 5 - Propulsion PDR #2 Scott Bird Mike Downes Kelby Haase
Propulsion QDR Scott Bird Mike Downes Kelby Haase Grant Hile
Aerodynamics PDR # 2 AAE451 – Team 3 November 18, 2003
Propulsion PDR #1 AAE451 – Team 3 October 7, 2003
STRUCTURES & WEIGHTS QDR 1
Team 5 Vehicle Sizing PDR
Propulsion QDR AAE 451 Fall 2006 Team 4 Tung Tran Mark Koch
Presentation transcript:

PROPULSION QDR 2 AAE 451 TEAM 4 Jared Hutter, Andrew Faust, Matt Bagg, Tony Bradford, Arun Padmanabhan, Gerald Lo, Kelvin Seah November 20, 2003

CONCEPT REVIEW Empennage High Wing Twin Booms Twin Engine Avionics Pod S = 34.5 ft2 b = 13.1 ft, c = 2.6 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)

OVERVIEW Overview of Engine Used Thrust Analysis Propeller Selection, Analysis & Choice Summary of Results Follow-Up Actions

ENGINE CHOICE Engine Choice: Saito FA-100 Specifications: Weight: 20.8 oz Bore: 29.0 mm Stroke: 26.0 mm Displacement: 1.0 cu. in. Practical RPM: 2,100 - 9,300 Power: 1.8 BHP @ ~9100 RPM Fuel Consumption Rate: 1 oz/min $279.99 at maximum RPM Source: http://www.saitoengines.com

DRAG ANALYSIS & REQUIRED THRUST performed for OEI condition Span efficiency, e 0.6 Aspect Ratio, AR 5 Lift Coefficient, CL 0.98 Induced Drag Coefficient, CDi 0.102 Parasitic Drag Coefficient, CD0 0.06 Drag Coefficient, CD = CD0 + CDi 0.162 Wing Area, S 34.46 ft2 Velocity = 1.2 Vstall = 1.2 28 ft/sec = 33.6 ft/sec Density, ρ = 0.002377 slug/ft3 Drag = 7.5 lbf

DRAG ANALYSIS & REQUIRED THRUST (continued) Drag = 7.5 lbf Flight Path Angle,  = 0.5 Weight = 54.5 lbf Thrust = Drag + Weight*sin() = 8 lbf L T V D  W 

PROPELLER ANALYSIS PROCEDURE Ensured that Gold.m was accurate. Modified Gold.m to incorporate actual propeller chord distributions for specific propellers. Plotted results to finalize propeller choice. Twin engine performance characteristics.

BELIEVABILITY CHECK First Place Engine, FPE 1.3ci Specifications 16x8 RECOMMENDED PROP 2,000 to 7,400 rpm RPM RANGE 10 lbs @7,400 rpm THRUST 43.2 ounces (including muffler) WEIGHT 1.3 cubic inches (21cc) DISPLACEMENT First Place Engine, FPE 1.3ci http://www.fpengines.com Gold.m results using a 16” x 8” propeller: Model Propeller Geometry: Tstatic = 9.9 lbs @ 7400RPM Zinger Propeller Geometry: Tstatic = 11.9 lbs @ 7400RPM Propeller Geometry Source: http://www.ace.gatech.edu/experiments2/6514/aircraft/fall02/propeller.htm

TWIST DISTRIBUTION

PROPELLER ANALYSIS

PROPELLER ANALYSIS lbf

PROPELLER ANALYSIS

ENGINE PARAMETERS Single Engine Flight (V = 33.6 ft/s) CP = 0.0274 CT = 0.0619 J = 0.1662 HP = 1.74 @ 9100 RPM  = 37.5% T = 10.7 lbf Twin Engine Flight (V = 60 ft/s) CP = 0.0185 CT = 0.0337 J = 0.1662 HP = 0.54 @ 7000 RPM  = 70% T = 3.44 lbf/engine = 6.88 lbf

FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS Contact engine manufacturer for further engine details Finalize fuel feed system

QUESTIONS?