Logan Waddell Morgan Buchanan Erik Susemichel Aaron Foster Craig Wikert Adam Ata Li Tan Matt Haas 1

Outline 2 1.Project mission 2.Selected concept 3.Sizing code results Modeling assumptions 4.Major Design Tradeoffs Carpet plots 5.Aircraft description 6.Aerodynamics Airfoil selection High-lift devices 7.Performance V-n diagram 8.Propulsion Engine description 9.Structures Configuration layout 10.Weights and Balance Center of gravity location 11.Stability and Control 12.Noise 13.Cost 14.Summary

Mission Statement To design an environmentally responsible aircraft that sufficiently completes the “N+2” requirements for the NASA green aviation challenge. 3

Major Design Requirements  Noise (dB) 42 dB decrease in noise  NO x Emissions 75% reduction in emissions below CAEP 6  Aircraft Fuel Burn 50% Reduction in Fuel Burn  Airport Field Length 50% shorter distance to takeoff * 4 *ERA. (n.d.). Retrieved 2011, from NASA:

Selected Concept Twin-aisle configuration, ~250 passengers with a two-class configuration Wing loading: 108 lb/ft^2 Wing AR: 7.8 Wing sweep: 31˚ T/W:

Aircraft Concept Walk-around Spiroid Winglets Technology Suite Geared Turbo Engines Scarf Inlets Chevron Nozzle Landing Gear Fairings Advanced Composites Spiroid Winglets Hybrid Laminar Flow Control Conventional Vertical Stabilizer Advanced Composite Materials Wing Mounted Engines 6

Sizing Code  Using MATLAB software, first order method from Raymer  Used inputs to determine the size of pre-existing aircraft for validation 7

Incorporating Drag 8  Drag values affect fuel fraction weights which affect the fuel weight  Drag buildup equation used to predict drag  Wave drag uses Lock’s fourth power law Included in the equation are the parasitic, induced, and wave drag

Component Weights 9 ComponentWeight (lb) Fuselage45,723 Wings51,396 Vertical Tail2,224 Horizontal Tails5,494 Engines25,200 Main Landing Gear14,972 Nose Landing Gear2,641 Empty weight buildup from Raymer text.

Validation  Boeing ER Passenger Capacity: 224 Range: 6,545 nmi Crew: 2 Cruise Mach: 0.8 Max Fuel Capacity: 16,700 gal 10

Validation continued 11 ActualPrediction% Error Gross Takeoff Weight 395,000 [lb]426,560 [lb]7.99 Empty Weight Fraction  The sizing code predictions are accurate  The error factor for the takeoff weight is:

Selected Concept Predictions 12 Take Off Gross Weight [lb] Empty Weight Fraction W empty [lb]W fuel [lb]W payload [lb]W crew [lb]

Fixed Design Parameter Values 13 ParameterValue C d C l (cruise) L/D (cruise) Thickness to Chord Ratio Sweep angle31

Engine Modeling 14  Used NASA Geared Turbofan tabular data to scale engine to desired propulsion characteristics  Scale factor is based on SLS thrust from tabular data  Scale factors also implemented for technologies ConceptAircraft MTOW (lbs) TSL/W 0 # of engines Max SLS Thrust (lbf) Scale Factor BaselineCS300ER n/a 1 Conventional w/tech H-Tail

Engine Modeling  Scale Factor used to size up all performance data in NASA file  Ex.  Technology Data Adjustment  Orbiting Combustion Nozzle 15 Performance CharacteristicAdjustment Factor NOx Emissions0.75 Fuel Burn0.85

Design Mission 16

Typical Design Mission  Average flight in the continental United States is 650 nm  Typical design mission Chicago to New York Approximately 618 nm Connects two major cities Typical route carries 212 passengers ○ 85% load factor 17

“Basic” Carpet Plot 18

Constraint Cross Plots Takeoff Ground Roll(d TO < 5000 ft) Cross Plot 19

20 Constraint Cross Plots Landing Braking Ground Roll(d L < 2000 ft) Cross Plot

Constraint Cross Plots Top Of Climb (TOP >= 100 ft/min) Cross Plot 21

Final Carpet Plot 22 Design PointW/S[lb/ft^2]T/SW0W

Other Trade-offs  Geared Turbofan: Less Fuel Weight vs. More Drags  Hybrid Laminar Flow Control: 12-14% Less Drags vs. 2.8% More Cost  Landing Fairing: Reduce noise vs. More Weight 23

Length: 180’ 186’ Wing Span: 167’ 197’ Height: 51’ 56’ Fuselage Height: 17’ 19’ 7’’ Fuselage Width: 16’ 18’ 11’’ 787-8Our concept 24

Two Class System  Seating 4 rows 1 st Class 34 rows Economy Class 250 passengers  Seat Pitch 39 inches 1 st Class 34 inches Economy Class  Seat Width 23 inches 1 st Class 19 inches Economy Class 25

One Class System  Seating No First Class (Low Cost Carriers) 44 rows Economy Class 303 passengers 26

Airfoil Selection  Supercritical airfoils to be used for all wing and stabilizer sections Still used for transonic aircraft* Reduce wave drag Increase fuel storage space  Airfoil would be designed to meet design goals Cruise C L = , L/D = * 27

Divergent Trailing Edge Airfoil  Separation bubble employed to generate more lift at trailing edge  New technology being developed with advances in CFD Not much concrete data at this time  Potentially plausible for N+3 goals 28

High-Lift Devices  Slats, Triple-slotted flaps Used for reliability  Lift coefficients for different configurations Takeoff C L = 1.3 Landing C L = 2.5  Landing and takeoff speeds set at 175 mph (152 kts), 15% faster than stall 29

Performance V-n (Loads) Diagram Performance Summary 30

V-n (Loads) Diagram 31 n=+2.11 n=-1

Performance Summary 32 Performance SummaryValues Best Range Velocity473 knots Best Endurance Velocity412 knots Stall Speed132 knots (no flaps) Maximum Speed during Climb 191 knots Maximum Speed during Cruise M = 0.8 Takeoff Distance (ground roll) 4,500 ft Landing Distance (ground roll) 1700 ft

Propulsion  Engine type: High-Bypass Geared Turbofan  Bypass Ratio:  Fan Pressure Ratio:  Overall Pressure Ratio: 42  SLS Thrust: 49,450 lbs  Dry Weight: 9590 lbs  Improvement Technologies  Orbiting Combustion Nozzle  Improves fuel burn/reduces emissions  Scarf Inlet  Redirects/Decreases fan noise  Chevron Nozzle  Reduces low frequency exhaust noise 33 Courtesy of Airliners.net

Other Technology Effects  Chevron Nozzle  Mixing flows can have adverse effect on thrust  Scarf Inlet  Greatly increases engine nacelle weight  Reduces inlet efficiency  Orbiting Combustion Nozzle  Thrust does not take a huge hit due to converging/diverging exit  Lack of need for diffusers and stators on either end of compressor reduce weight of engine 34

Engine Performance  Specific Fuel Consumption 35

Engine Performance 36

Engine Performance  Emissions Reduction/Fuel Burn Savings 37 LTO NOx Emissions CAEP 6 Standard83 g/kN 75% below CAEP g/kN Original Engine Deck54 g/kN % Improvement34.9% Rubber Engine21.1 g/kN % Improvement74.6% Fuel Burn (Cruise) RB-211 (757)7023 lb/hr Rubber GTF Engine3841 lb/hr % Reduction45.31%

Structures: Load Paths 38 Wing-fuselage intersection (Wing box) Pylons Tail Intersections Fuselage Landing gear

Structures: Wing Box 39 Wing-fuselage intersection (Wing box)

Structures: Engine Pylons 40 Engine pylons

Structures: Landing Gear 41 Landing Gear Integration

Structures: Material Selections Composite Fuselage (Carbon Laminate) Composites on leading edges for laminar flow Aluminum and Fiberglass wings Titanium for pylons Steel for elevator, rudder, and landing gear 42

Weights and Balance Aircraft Group Weights Statement Description of Empty Weight Prediction Location of Center of Gravity 43

Empty Weight Prediction Method  Equations for a/c components from Raymer  Each component function of designed gross weight  Summation of component weights 44

CG and Neutral Point  Center of Gravity:  Components included in CG calculation Fuselage, wing, horizontal tail, vertical tail, nacelles, engines, and landing gears  Other weights put in center of vehicle Crew, passengers, payload, furnishings, etc.  Neutral Point: 87.6 ft from nose 45

Center of Gravity Travel 46

Stability and Control  Static Longitudinal Stability  Lateral Stability 47

CG and Longitudinal Stability 48 CG from Nose [ft]Weight [lb]Static Margin EW % OEW % OEW +fuel % MTOW % MTOW -fuel %

Tail Sizing  Current Approach Using Raymer Equations (6.28) and (6.29) 49 Concept 1 Tail area815 ft 2 Vertical Tail area660 ft 2

Control Surface Sizing 50 Control Surface Surface Area [ft 2 ] Aileron476 Elevator149 Rudder198 Raymer Figure 6.3 – Aileron Sizing Raymer Table 6.5 – Elevator Sizing

Noise Reduction Technologies  Geared turbofan engine Approximate 20% in noise Engine developed twice as powerful as anything presently built, 10% reduction in noise used Compared to Boeing ER with GE 90-90B engines, this is a 9 dB decrease  Chevron nozzle Reduces noise up to 2.5 dB Due to engine size, reduction assumed to be 1 dB  Scarf Inlet No concrete data could be found, noise reduction assumed to be 1 dB  Landing Gear Fairings Reduce noise by 2 dB 51

Boeing LR Noise Data 52

Conclusion on Noise  For Stage 4 standards, noise generated must be less than 90 dB in any given test.  To meet N+2 requirements, the cumulative margin between the noise generated and 90 dB must be at least 42 dB.  Estimates give a 9 dB deficit from Stage 4, with a cumulative noise reduction of 27 dB. Goal is NOT met.  Plenty of noise reduction technology is in development, but none would be ready by

Cost Prediction * the accuracy of results obtained with these models for commercial aircraft is questionable Non-Recurring Costs Engineering Tooling Development support Flight tests Recurring Costs Engineering Tooling Manufacturing Material Quality Assurance Increase cost by ~ 20% to account for all new technologies * Analysis from NASA Airframe cost model Airframe cost in 2011$, millions # A/cNon-recurring Recurring costTotal CostCost per A/C

Cost Prediction Example case if producing 200 A/C Would have to sell each aircraft for $104M to break even Using the modified DAPCA IV Cost Model (costs in 2011 dollars) *Increased cost by 20% to account for technologies Production of 200 aircraft RDT&E + Flyaway = $ B Would have to sell 200 aircraft for $170.6 M each to breakeven Airframe cost # A/cNon-recurring Recurring costTotal CostCost per A/C

Cost: Operations and Maintenance Fuel costs Price: ~$5.50 / gallon Jet A (2011 price) Crew Salaries Maintenance Insurance Commercial: add approx. 1-3% to cost of operations *Raymer Depreciation ~ 4.0% total value per year 56

Cost: Operations and Maintenance In 2011$ Cockpit Crew: $ /block hour (domestic) $ / block hour (international) Cabin crew: ~$ /block hour (domestic) ~$ / block hour (international) Landing fee: $679.5 / trip Maintenance labor: 3.64 MMH/FH airframe 6.84 MMH/TRIP Engine Maintenance material: $85.74/ flight hour airframe $ /trip Engine * Advanced subsonic Airplane design & Economic Studies (NASA) 57

Summary of Final Design Tube and Wing design with advanced technologies Swept back wings Technologies Spiroids Laminar Flow Geared Turbofan Composite Materials 58

Compliance Matrix 59 Design RequirementsUnitsTargetThresholdFinal DesignCompliant RangeNautical Miles4,0003,6004,000Yes PayloadPassengers Yes Cruise Mach # Yes Takeoff Ground Roll ft7,0009,0004,500Yes Landing Ground Roll ft6,0006,5001,700Yes Fuel Burnlb/hr4,2504,5003,841Yes Emissions(NO x )g/kN thrust15 (-75%)2221.1(-74.6%)No Noise (Cumulative) dB No

Design Requirements Plausible?  Fuel Burn ~ Possible  Field Length ~ Possible  Emissions ~ Very difficult but can be possible  Noise ~ Not possible for N+2 Noise shielding Engine configuration 60

Future Work  More detailed sizing code/calculations  Aircraft Model Build 3-D model  Work with airlines to receive feedback  Enter NASA competition 61