Patrick Dempsey Bridget Fitzpatrick Heather Garber Keith Hout Jong Soo Mok AAE451 Aircraft Design Professor Dominick Andrisani First Flight November 21, 2000

Presentation Overview -Mission & Performance -3-view & aircraft dimensions -Aerodynamics -Stability and Control -Structures -Propulsion -Cost Analysis -Conclusion

Mission & Performance Takeoff Climb Cruise & Turn Descent Land -Estimated Values -Takeoff distance: 35.5 ft -Climb angle: 12  -Cruise & Turn: 13 min -Turn rate: 2.45 rad/sec -Constraint Values -MAX. Takeoff distance:120 ft -MIN. Climb angle: 5.5  -MIN. Cruise & Turn: 12 min -MIN. Turn rate: 0.8 rad/sec

Mission & Performance -Phase Time Breakdown, Energy & Power Requirement

-Text Constraint Diagram

Team Orion Aerospace - DIMENSIONS IN FEET

Aircraft Dimensions Wing span (b)6.6 ft Chord (c)1.5 ft Wing Area (S)20.0 ft 2 Fuselage length5.9 ft Span h-tail3.2 ft Root chord h-tail1.3 ft Tip chord h-tail0.8 ft L.E. sweep h-tail18.4  Horizontal tail area 3.3 ft 2 ¼ chord sweep h- tail 14.0  Span v-tail1.3 ft Root chord V-tail1.3 ft Tip chord V-tail0.8 ft L.E. sweep V-tail21.0  ¼ chord sweep v-tail10.9  Vertical tail area1.3 ft 2 Incidence wing33 Incidence h-tail00

Aerodynamics -Selection of Airfoil for Wing -Selection of Horizontal and Vertical Tail -Lift Curve -Drag Polar -Lift to Drag Ratio vs Angle of Attack -CMARC Analysis

Aerodynamics CL  3.93 rad -1 CL  wing 4.10 rad -1 CLo.5242 Cm  rad -1 Cmo0.50 CDo.0427 VelocityRe Stall20 ft/s Cruise25 ft/s Max30 ft/s

-Airfoil Selection: Selig-Donavan Low Reynolds Number, Slow Speed Flight -Experimental Data/ Xfoil Analysis -CL vs Alpha Curve, Drag Polar -Ease of Construction -Horizontal and Vertical Tail: Flat Plate Assumption Aerodynamics

MethodCL-max Warner1.25 Roskam1.48 Average D1.53

Aerodynamics PhaseAngle of AttackCL Climb4.0 .75 Cruise3.0 .70 Turn5.2 .84 Stall9.0  1.3

Aerodynamic Effectiveness of the control surfaces -Rudder Effectiveness: 60% -Elevator Effectiveness: 60% -Aileron Effectiveness: 30% Effectiveness determined from Roskam’s Flight Dynamics and Controls

CMARC Analysis

Stability and Control  Feedback Loop Description  Static Margin, CG, and Aerodynamic Center  Control Surface and Tail Sizing  Horizontal and Vertical Tail Size Verification  Trim Diagram  Pertinent Static Stability Derivatives and Comparison

Loop Closure Description TX RX Servo Aircraft Pitch Rate Gyro Pilot +/ - ? + Servo converts voltage to elevator deflection Pilot inputs elevator command Sign of feedback gain is chosen to stabilize or destabilize the mode  Rate feedback in the pitch axis  Vary the stability of the short period mode  Block Diagram

Static Margin, CG, and Aerodynamic Center Static Margin Desired is 10% Past 451 final reports agree that 10-15% is an agreeable range for model aircraft Pick toward lower end of range to help with trimming Pick desired Static Margin and place internal equipment to obtain the CG that gives this Static Margin X LE X CG X NP X ACHT Distances in ft

Sizing of Control Surfaces And Tails Historical Methods (as described in Raymer’s Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach) Control Surfaces Guidelines Ailerons: 15-25% chord and 50–90% span Elevators: 25–50% chord and ~90% span Rudders: 25–50% chord and ~90% span Selected: Ailerons: 15% chord and full span Elevators: 40% chord and full span Rudder: 40% chord and full span Tails Sized using the Tail Volume coefficient method Horizontal Tail Volume Coefficient = 0.45 Vertical Tail Volume Coefficient = 0.04 Coefficients based on old 451 Air designs V-tailH-tail Span(ft) AvgChord(ft) Aspect Ratio Taper Ratio0.6 LE Sweep (deg) Dihedral (deg) 0.0 Planform Area (ft 2 )

Analysis Of Tails -Horizontal Tail

-Vertical Tail -“Weathercock” Stability Criterion Analysis Of Tails (Dr. Roskam’s Airplane Design Series)

Trim Diagram -Text

Trim Diagram

Static Stability Derivative Comparison SID-5Cessna 172 MPX All units are rad -1 Note: The MPX5 is a model aircraft designed by Mark Peters for his thesis, “Development of a Light Unmanned Aircraft for the Determination of Flying Qualities Requirements”, May 1996.

Structures Overview -Basic layout of the wing -Structures matlab code -Material properties -Equipment layout -Weight breakdown -Landing gear analysis

Basic Layout of Wing Spar -Located at the 1/4 chord Sparcaps -Spruce -1/8” x 1/8” x 6.6’ Shearweb -Balsa -1.5” x 1/16” x 6.6’ Ribs -Balsa -Spaced every 3 inches from tip -Include lightening holes Added balsa at leading and trailing edge

Geometric Layout of rib Typical rib section

Material Properties Table taken from Spring ’99 AAE 451 report (Team WTA) -Normal Stress (at spar caps) = 2750psi

Internal equipment layout EquipmentVolume(in 3 ) Gear box 3 x 1.5 x 1 Motor2.25 x 1.5 Speed Controller1.5 x 1.25 x 1 Receiver 1.75 x 1.25 x 0.75 Gyro 1.5 x 1.25 x 1.25 Data Recorder 1.75 x 2.25 x 3.25 Battery(18) 2 x 1 x 1 Servo 1.5 x 1.25 x 0.75 Interface 1.25 x 3.5 x 5.75

Weight Breakdown Wing42.0 (oz) Tail9.5 (oz) Fuselage11.0 (oz) Misc9.8 (oz) Receiver1.0(oz) Speed controller3.0(oz) Gyro3.5(oz) Tattletail815.0(oz) Motor7.5(oz) Gearbox1.5(oz) Propeller1.0(oz) Servo(4)2.0(oz) Cell weight(18)2.8(oz) Total Weight SID5 = (oz), 10.2(lbs)

Landing Gear -Conventional taildragger landing gear Method for sizing and placement of landing gear Figure 11.4 Raymer -Lateral separation angle of 37.7  -Located 1.2’ from nose 0.6” in front of the leading edge

Propulsion -Constraint Values for Propulsion Design -Motor Selection -Propeller Selection -Speed Controller Selection -Gearbox Selection -Battery Sizing & Energy Balance

Propulsion Constraint Values for Propulsion Design -From Sizing Codes -Maximum Thrust Required = Climb Thrust = 3.35 lbf -Maximum Power Required into Air =109 Watts -Endurance Time= 13.3 minutes -Maximum Available Energy = 2592 Watts-Min. With 18 Battery Cells of Sanyo 2000mAh, 1.2 Volts.

Propulsion Motor Selection -Tool : Modified Motor Code provided by Prof. Andrisani -Criteria : High Efficiency, High Power at Low Current

Propulsion Propeller Selection -Tool:Modified Gold Code provided by Prof. Andrisani -Criteria: High Efficiency, Low Power Usage, High Thrust at 25 ft/sec.

Propulsion Gearbox and Speed Controller Selection -Tool: Modified Motor Code provided by Prof. Andrisani -Criteria: Minimum Power dissipated by Controller, High Efficiency, Low RPM

Propulsion 3 Choices to Final Propulsion Design Consideration -Common Features: Maxcim N32-13Y Motor, Maxµ35B-21 S.C. -Choice 1: 14X8 Propeller, 3.53 Gear Ratio -Choice 2: 14X8 Propeller, 3.75 Gear Ratio -Choice 3: 14X10 Propeller, 4 Gear Ratio

Propulsion Battery Sizing & Energy Balance -Tool: Modified Motor Code provided by Prof. Andrisani & Iteration procedure to match Battery Size -Criteria: Minimum Number of Battery Cells, Minimum Energy Usage -Choice 2: Maxcim N32-13Y Motor, Maxµ35B-21 S.C, 14X8 Propeller, 3.75 Gear Ratio, 18 Battery Cells

Cost Analysis -Wing Test Materials ~ $90 -SID5 Materials ~ $ Man Hours (estimate) ~ Labor ($150/hour) ~ $345,000

Price Breakdown of SID5

conclusion Remaining Tasks Aerodynamics -Improve CMARC Model Stability & Control -Need transfer functions for Rate Gyro and Servo. -Determine transfer function for the entire control loop and pick a suitable gain Structures -Torsion and Loading Tests of sample wing panel to verify Aircraft Durability Propulsion -Test for Propeller and Motor to verify the results from the codes

Questions?