Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Progress Presentation Matthew Chin, Aaron Dickerson Brett J. Ulrich, Tzvee Wood November 4th, 2004 Group #1 – Project #3

Presentation Outline Review of Project Objectives & Deliverables Early Design Concepts Computer Software Implementation Data Digitalization WINFOIL Evaluations Engineering Equation Solver Calculations Design Concepts Wing Landing Gear Tail Prop Schedule Update

Project Objectives Compete in SAE Aero East Competition Apply areas of Mechanical Engineering education to a real life problem: Dynamics Fluid Mechanics Modeling & Simulation Analysis of Stresses

Project Objectives Dynamics/Analysis of stresses Fluid Mechanics Force of drag, weight, and gravity on the wing/fuselage Fluid Mechanics Used in analysis of airfoil Modeling & Simulation For CAD models of wing, fuselage, landing gear

Anticipated Deliverables Finished calculations Final wing selection Sketches of the final design CAD drawings - wing, fuselage, landing gear Projected construction budget Parts order

Problems To Watch Out For Ideal design needs to be able to be actually constructed Stability of construction so that the plane does not fall apart on landing Time management for construction Previous team only used one design did not iterate More practice on shrink wrap coating procedure for wing

Early Design Concepts Biplanes originally popular for increased lifting capacity At this scale the effect of the additional wing is not worth the additional weight and construction cost

Early Design Concepts Dual wing plane also considered Initially thought to be able to produce significantly more lift than standard monoplane Alignment of wings can produce major parasitic losses if done improperly

Early Design Concepts Flying wing early popular concept One large wing has significantly larger area than standard monoplane Possibly difficult to build and transport Still under consideration

Early Design Concepts Plane Concepts Criterion Flying Wing Monoplane   Plane Concepts Criterion Flying Wing Monoplane Biplane 2 Sequential Wings Construction Feasibility 1 -1 Design Novelty Simplicity of Calculations Ruggedness Stability Durability Weight Lift Cost Σ +1 3 5 Σ -1 Σ 0 4 Rank 2

Data Digitalization SAE Documentation Provides Data for LMN-1 Airfoil (similar to Selig 1223, Liebeck LD-X17A and other RC aircraft) Data includes: The dependence of CL on Aspect Ratio and Angle of Attack Viscous drag due to lift Ratio of Thrust to Static Thrust vs. Speed

Data Digitalization The following graphs are provided in the aforementioned white paper

Data Digitalization Large samples of data points were recorded and entered into MATLAB manually In the event you missed it, they’re computerized now!

Wing Analysis With WINFOIL Monoplane first examined First sought to examine the effects of different designs on L/D Ratio: Constant Chord Tapered Swept Back Tapered For each design L/D ratio is the same Can be easily seen from CL α CD CL=L/(0.5*AP*V2*ρ) CD=D/(0.5*AP*V2*ρ) Each Wing Analyzed With Same Planform Area Assumed 6inch Fuselage   Constant Chord Tapered Wing S B Area (in2) 1797.85 1798.10 Aspect Ratio 1.62 MAC (Mean Aero Chord) 33.27 33.72 Stall Speed (mph) 12.98 Max Speed (mph) 101 Max L/D 7.5 at what MPH 30 Min Sink Speed (ft/s) 5.29 20

Wing Analysis With WINFOIL Selected Eppler 193 Mod Wing Previous designs Suggestion of Senior Design Coordinator Higher CL than other airfoils such as NACA 6409 Relatively easy to build No fine trailing edge Reasonable Thickness Decided against use of Swept Back Tapered Too many variables Requires too much precision Tapered Wing is still under consideration

Wing Analysis With WINFOIL   Wing Profile Criterion NACA 6409 Eppler 193 Mod Construction Feasibility Design Novelty 1 Simplicity of Calculations Ruggedness Stability Durability Weight Lift -1 Cost Σ +1 Σ -1 2 Σ 0 6 8 Rank

Wing Analysis With WINFOIL   Wings Criterion Constant Chord Tapered Chord Sweptback Tapered Construction Feasibility 1 -1 Design Novelty Simplicity of Calculations Ruggedness Stability Durability Weight Lift Cost Σ +1 3 4 Σ -1 6 Σ 0 5 2 Rank

Wing Analysis With WINFOIL Same Root Chord   Tapered Wings Wing Taper Ratio 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 Area (in2) 1797.85 1573.27 1348.69 1124.11 MAC (Mean Aero Chord) 33.27 29.31 25.88 23.21 Aspect Ratio 1.62 1.85 2.16 2.59 Stall Speed (mph) 12.98 13.87 14.98 16.41 Max Speed (mph) 101 105 112 118 Max L/D 7.5 8.05 8.70 9.46 at what MPH 30 Min Sink Speed (ft/s) 5.29 5.1 4.89 4.66 20 21 22 23 Effect of wing taper ratio on various performance characteristics examined Assumptions: Wing holds entire plane weight assumed to be 7lbs Max 2hp No fuselage accounted for

Wing Analysis With WINFOIL Same Area for Wing   Constant Chord Tapered Wing S B Area (in2) 1998 Aspect Ratio 1.8 MAC (Mean Aero Chord) 33.27 33.72 Stall Speed (mph) 12.31 Max Speed (mph) 98 Max L/D 7.68 at what MPH 30 Min Sink Speed (ft/s) 4.68 19 Flying Wing Analysis Like the Monoplane L/D ratio is independent of wing design for wings of same area

Wing Analysis With WINFOIL Same Root Chord – Flying Wing Full 60 In Taken as Wing Span, No Parasitic Losses   Tapered Wings Wing Taper Ratio 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 Area (in2) 1998 1692.13 1498.72 1249.08 MAC (Mean Aero Chord) 33.27 28.48 25.88 23.29 Aspect Ratio 1.8 2.13 2.4 2.88 Stall Speed (mph) 12.31 13.38 14.21 15.57 Max Speed (mph) 98 104 107 114 Max L/D 7.68 8.51 9.12 10.05 at what MPH 30 Min Sink Speed (ft/s) 4.68 4.46 4.32 4.11 19 20 21

Wing Analysis With WINFOIL WINFOIL 3D Rendering Still experiencing problems exporting from WINFOIL to CAD programs for tapered wings

Wing Features Being Considered Hoerner Plates – reduce tip losses Dihedral Angle – reduces chance of stall under banked conditions May not be necessary for a 60” wingspan

Add’l Computer Analysis Previously generated MATLAB curve fits utilized in EES for calculations Entire current EES model included in presentation handouts

Add’l Computer Analysis Based upon white paper and aerodynamic principles Input Design Parameters Takeoff distance (e.g., <190ft) 28 ft Landing Distance (e.g., <380ft) 46 ft FuselageLength 10 in FuselageWidth 5 in FuselageBoomLength 40 in WingSpan 60 in WingAR 1.62 WingTaper 1.0 S_Ref 1800 in2

Add’l Computer Analysis Output Values Takeoff velocity 48 ft/s = 33 mph Stall velocity 49 ft/s = 34 mph Maximum weight (plane + payload) Next generation of EES development Currently Weight is an input Benefits Rapid design Reduced chance for calculation errors Continuous refinement - design called for and time permitted Reusable in future years

Add’l Computer Analysis Mathematical analysis entered into to EES

Add’l Computer Analysis Mathematical analysis entered into to EES

Landing Gear Tricycle Conventional Tail Dragger Tandem

Landing Gear Tail dragger Tricycle Only uses two forward main wheels Reduces weight Reduces drag May be unstable when aircraft turns Tricycle Three wheel configuration Increases control on ground if equipped with steerable front wheel Tandem usually used on large aircraft

Landing Gear Landing gear week point in past designs CAD Model for Conventional Landing Gear Primary Assembly Aluminum support Nylon wheels

Landing Gear Simulate impact of a 30lbs plane dropping from a stall Applied 80lbs to the surface simulating attachment to the plane

Other Plane Features Boom length – too long can create increased drag and instability Vertical stabilizer height – if too large, the control surface induces a large moment leading to instability Led to a crash in 2002

Tail Design Vertical Stabilizer Single Dual Configuration

Tail Design Stabilizer/Elevator Fixed Stabilizer Portion Moveable Elevator Requires complex mechanism to move elevator Increases drag if not trimmed for the specific cruising speed of the aircraft Stabilator Serves double duty as a stabilizer and elevator Rotates on aerodynamic center Mechanism to rotate stabilator will be less complex than required for stabilizer/elevator Theoretically reduces drag Generally used in very fast aircraft

Prop Selection Propeller selection depends upon the size of the engine Propeller will be purchased from outside source Precise dimensions difficult to manufacture by hand Higher grade materials with higher strength to weight ratio available commercially

Prop Selection Competition rules mandate use of a O.S. .61 FX engine 0.607 cu in displacement Manufacturer recommends the following props: 11x8-10 12x7-11 12.5x6-7

Prop Selection Dynathrust Props (www.dynathrustprops.com) sells injection molded fiberglass and nylon propellers Higher strength to weight ratio than wood props Prop manufacturer reccomends the following props: 11x7-8 12x6 A 12x8 prop costs only $3.00 Manufacturing labor time cost will also be saved

Materials Balsa wood Injection molded fiberglass and nylon Light metal, such as aluminum Heat shrink monocoat for wing Rip-stop Nylon Carbon fiber tubing

Schedule Update

Conclusions Digitalized data enables swift calculations in EES Design team has evaluated past difficulties Wing design is on schedule Select final wing profile Select monoplane or flying wing Landing gear will be selected when plane design is finalized Monoplane = Conventional Tail Dragger Flying Wing = Tricycle Tail will consist of a single vertical stabilizer, exact shape to be determined when wing design is complete Prop will be outsourced to save time and money

We Welcome Your Questions and Feedback Thank You

References http://students.sae.org/competitions/aerodesign/east http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/performance/landing.html http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/wingdesign/wingparams.html http://www.profili2.com/eng/default.htm http://www.uoguelph.ca/~antoon/websites/air.htm http://www.angelfire.com/ar2/planes2/links.html http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/2716/index.html http://www.winfoil.com/