Group 13 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Stephen McNulty Richard-Marc Hernandez Jessica Pisano Yoosuk Kee Chi Yan Project Advisor: Siva Thangam

Overview ObjectivesSchedule/Progress Design Concepts and Analysis Airfoil Airfoil Fuselage Fuselage Tail Tail Landing Gear Landing Gear End of Semester Deliverables Next Semester Goals

Objectives Competition Specs are not posted for 2004 competition The plane meets the specifications of the 2004 SAE Aero Design East/West competition To finish the design of the plane by December and begin construction and testing in January To compete well at competition and improve Stevens reputation For the team to improve and expand their knowledge of the design and construction of airplanes

Schedule

Journal/Progress Researched airfoil computer analysis software Calculations for Airfoil Competition rules keep changing and are no longer posted on website Competition rules keep changing and are no longer posted on website Stereo-lithography Lab Landing Gear models and analysis Fuselage Design and Calculations Tail Design

Airfoil Low camber, low drag, high speed, thin wing Deep camber, high lift, low peed, thick wing Deep camber, high lift, low speed, thin wing Low lift, high drag, reflex trailing edge Symmetrical (cambered top and bottom)

Airfoil Airfoils used from previous years: Year 2000: E 211 Year 2000: E 211 Year 2001: E 423 Year 2001: E 423 Year 2002: OAF 102 Year 2002: OAF 102 From research: E 214 E 214 S 1223 S 1223

C L vs. AoA

Airfoil Matrix Important Factor E122E214E423 OAF10 2 S1223 Cl Cd Constructio n Overall

Airfoil Design and Calculations Wing: Re (S1223) Swet [in^2] Wing Span [in] 120 Wing Chord [in] 12 Sref [in^2] 1440 Clmax Cf (turbulent) Cf (laminar) t/c0.121 x/c0.2 FF Cdmin (turb) Cdmin (laminar)

Wing Shape RectangularTapered Rounded (or Elliptical) Swept Wing Delta Wing

Wing Shape Comparison Rectangular Wing Advantages: Greater aileron control Greater aileron control East to construct East to constructDisadvantages: Not efficient in terms of stall and drag Not efficient in terms of stall and drag Tapered Wing Advantages: Decrease drag / Increase lift Decrease drag / Increase lift Harder to construct Harder to constructDisadvantages: Not as efficient in terms of stall and drag Not as efficient in terms of stall and drag

Wing Shape Comparison Elliptical Wing Advantages: Minimum drag Minimum drag Most efficient compared to rect. and tapered Most efficient compared to rect. and taperedDisadvantages: Hardest to construct Hardest to construct Swept and Delta Wings Advantages: Minimum drag in high speed Minimum drag in high speed Very stable and flexible Very stable and flexibleDisadvantages: Suitable only for high speed aircrafts Suitable only for high speed aircrafts

Wing Shape Matrix WingEfficiencyStallCharacteristicConstruct.Overall importan ce Rect Tapered44452 Elliptical55248 Swept33336 Delta33336

Dihedral angle Dihedral Wing Flat Wing Cathedral Wing Gull Wing

Wing Angle Comparison Dihedral Wing Advantages: Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turning Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turningDisadvantages: Stress concentration at wing roots Stress concentration at wing roots Harder to construct Harder to construct Flat Wing Advantages: Easy to construct Easy to construct Load distribution is equally spread out the wing Load distribution is equally spread out the wingDisadvantages: Not as stable as dihedral wings Not as stable as dihedral wings

Wing Angle Comparison Cathedral Wing Advantages: Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turning Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turningDisadvantages: Stress concentration at wing roots Stress concentration at wing roots Harder to construct Harder to construct Suitable for high speed cargo planes Suitable for high speed cargo planes Gull Wing Advantages: Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turning Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turningDisadvantages: Stress concentration at the Gull point Stress concentration at the Gull point Hardest to construct Hardest to construct Suitable for high speed aircrafts Suitable for high speed aircrafts

Wing Angle Matrix Important Factor DihedralFlatCathedralGull Stability55353 performance44322 efficiency45422 construction33532 Overall

Number of Wings MonoplaneBiplaneTriplane

Number of Wings Comparison MonoplaneAdvantages Easiest to construct Easiest to construct Very light weighted compared to Bi- and Tri-planes Very light weighted compared to Bi- and Tri-planesDisadvantages Produces less lift for the aircraft Produces less lift for the aircraft Less stable when turning Less stable when turningBiplaneAdvantages Adds more lift to the aircraft Adds more lift to the aircraft More stable when turning More stable when turningDisadvantages Harder to construct and repair Harder to construct and repair Adds more weight to the aircraft Adds more weight to the aircraftTriplaneAdvantages Produces highest lift for aircraft Produces highest lift for aircraft Most stable compared to Mono- and Bi-planes Most stable compared to Mono- and Bi-planesDisadvantages Hardest to construct and repair Hardest to construct and repair Adds more weight to the aircraft Adds more weight to the aircraft

Number of Wings Matrix Currently do not have one yet 2004 Aero East Design rules are not up Decision is made based upon on the rules and regulations of the competition

Selection Selig 1223 Rectangular Dihedral

Fuselage Design and Calculations Fuselage: length25in width5in planforrm area151in^2 wetted area605in^2 fuselage/boom density slugs/ft^3 coefficient of viscosity3.677E-07slugs/ft-sec Velocity (flight speed)51ft/sec Re (turbulent) l/d5 Form factor Cf Cd min (turbulent)

Fuselage PanelsWireframe Cast Mold Injection Mold

Fuselage Comparison PanelsPros:Lightweight Easy to construct Easy to assemble Affordable Cons: Not very strong

Fuselage Comparison Wire frame Pros: Very Strong and sturdy Affordable Cons:Heavy Difficult to construct

Fuselage Comparison Cast Molding Pros: Very accurate shape Aerodynamic advantages Strong frame No assembly required Cons:unaffordable Difficult to design a mold No spare parts

Fuselage Comparison Injection Molding Pros: Very accurate shape Aerodynamic advantages Strong frame No assembly required Cons:UnaffordableHeavy Difficult to design a mold No spare parts

Fuselage Matrix ImportancePanels Wire frame Cast Mold Injection Mold Construction55342 Weight55432 Cost45422 Strength43545 Total Ranking1234

Selection Panel Fuselage

Boom Design and Calculations Tail Boom: Re length boom48in length fuselage25in length fuselage/boom73in Swet28in^2 Sref14in^2 Cf (turbulent) Cd min (turbulent)

Tail Boom 1 spar 2 spars 3 spars 3 or more panels

Tail Boom Matrix Importance 1 spar 2 spars 3 spars 3 or more panels Construction45554 Weight45435 Strength53453 Total Ranking3214

Selection Three Spar

Landing Gear Importance Facto r 1 Nose 1 Tail 2 Nose 2 Tail Without Rod Steerability35354 Impact52334 Construction34333 Total With Rod Steerability35354 Impact Construction34333 Total Ratings 1-5

Landing Gear Analysis SolidWorks models Deflection Analysis Deflection Analysis Stress Analysis Stress Analysis Deformation Analysis Deformation Analysis Top fixed Force applied to bottom of legs Force applied = 45lbs Force applied = 45lbs Force = Weight of plane Force = Weight of plane

Landing Gear Design 1 Analysis Standard Main Landing Gear Aluminum Design Rejected Max Deflection.2238 in Stress Max 6.162e3 Psi

Landing Gear Design 2 Analysis Main Landing Gear with Rod Aluminum Max Deflection.0196 in Stress Max Psi Last years final design

Landing Gear Design 3 Analysis Max Deflection 1.841e-3 in Stress Max 6.783e+2 Psi Main Landing Gear Truss Design Aluminum Design Being Strongly Considered

Landing Gear Design 4 Analysis Main Landing Gear Modified Truss Design Aluminum Design Being Strongly Considered Max Deflection 1.342e-3 in Stress Max 5.332e+2 Psi

Landing Gear Design 5 Analysis Stress Max 2.651e+2 Psi Max Deflection 1.890e-4 in Main Landing Gear Modified Truss Design Modified for Lighter Weight Aluminum Selected

Tail Design and Calculations Horizontal tail: Vertical Tail: Re (NACA 0012) Re (NACA0012) chord (MAC)7inchord (MAC)9.8in Swet0in^2Swet189in^2 Wing Span40inTail height24in Sref280in^2Sref235.2in Clmax0 Cf (laminar) Cf (laminar) t/c0.12 t/c0.12 x/c0.287 x/c0.287 FF FF Cdmin (laminar) Tail stabilizer does not provide lift to plane. Symmetrical airfoil is needed for vertical tail.

Tail Conventional Tail T-Tail H-Tail Triple Tail V-Tail

Tail Matrix Importance Conventio nal Tail T-TailH-Tail Triple Tail V-Tail Constructi on Surface Area/ Drag Control/ Stability Total Ranking12254

Tail Vertical Tail Stabilizer 2ft 2ft controls the horizontal movement of plane controls the horizontal movement of plane keeps the nose of the plane from swinging from side to side keeps the nose of the plane from swinging from side to side Horizontal Tail Stabilizer 3.33ft 3.33ft controls vertical movement of plane controls vertical movement of plane prevents an up-and-down motion of the nose prevents an up-and-down motion of the nose

Construction Wing/Tail Construction Foam Core Foam Core Risers (Balsa Wood) Risers (Balsa Wood) Fuselage Construction Plywood Plywood Aluminum Plate Aluminum Plate Boom Construction Wooden Dowels Wooden Dowels Carbon Fiber Tubes Carbon Fiber Tubes Plywood Plywood Landing Gear Aluminum Aluminum Steel SteelTire Rubber Core Rubber Core Air Filled Rubber Air Filled Rubber Sponge Sponge

Construction Matrix Importa nce Importa nce Foam Foam Riser s Aluminum Plate Plywood Wooden Dowels Carbon Fiber Tubes Aluminu m Steel Rubber Core Air Filled Rubber Sponge Ease Strength Accuracy Weight Machinea bility Total WingTailFuselageBoom Landing Gear Tire

ME 423 Senior Design, Fall Project Number 13 Team members: R. Hernandez, Y. Kee, S. McNulty, J. Pisano, C. Yan Advisor: Professor Siva Thangam Title: Creation of a Heavy Lift Radio-Controlled Cargo Plane Objectives: Design Results: Design Approach: Computer Aided Drawing of Design: Design Specifications: Design a high performance heavy lift R/C cargo plane whose purpose is to carry the most weight possible Enter manufactured design into 2004 SAE Aero Design East Competition in Orlando, FL Carbon Fiber Spars connecting fuselage and tail S1223 airfoil balsa wood risers construction of stabilizers and wings Rectangular wing planform Horner plates (winglets) for improved flight characteristics Tail dragger landing gear configuration Unitized body fuselage Dihedral Wing Wingspan: 10ft Engine: FX OS 2 stroke motor 0.61 cubic inches 1.9 hp Minimum Cargo Area: 120 in 3 Cargo Weight: 35 pounds Empty Plane Weight: 10 pounds Plane Length: 7.5ft Plane Height: 1 ft Technology Utilization of the latest airfoil simulations, composite materials, to obtain the lightest design that creates the most lift Maximum lift Selection of airfoil and wing shape Light materials Drag reduction

Final Design

End of Semester Deliverables Completed Airplane design Calculations Calculations CAD models and analyses CAD models and analyses Completed parts list for plane construction Gantt Chart for spring semester Budget

Summary ObjectivesSchedule/Progress Design Concepts and Analysis Airfoil Airfoil Fuselage Fuselage Tail Tail Landing Gear Landing Gear End of Semester Deliverables Next Semester Goals

Questions???