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

Overview Objectives Schedule/Progress Design Concepts and Analysis Wing Fuselage Tail Landing Gear Goals

Objectives Competition Specs are finally posted for the 2004 competition The plane meets the specifications of the 2004 SAE Aero Design 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

Design Specifications Minimum allowed wingspan 120 inches Takeoff limit 200 feet Landing Distance 400 feet Minimum cargo area 6 in x 5 in x 4 in Engine unmodified FX O.S. 2 stroke motor 0.61 cubic inches 1.9 hp E-4010 muffler

Design Specs Comparison Design Specifications: This Year (2004) Previous Year (2003) Wing Span Minimum 10 ft Maximum 6 ft Wing Chord No restriction Maximum 1 ft Cargo Volume Minimum 120 in3 Minimum 300 in3 Maximum Takeoff Distance 200 ft Maximum Landing Distance 400 ft Engine .61 FX-OS .61 FX-OS or K&B .61 R/C ABC Battery Minimum 500 mAh

Schedule

Journal/Progress Researched airfoil computer analysis software Calculations Stereo-lithography Lab Final Design Landing Gear models and analysis Fuselage Design and Calculations Tail Design Wing Design

Rules for Wing 16.1 Fixed Wing Aircraft Type Requirements and Restrictions Only fixed-wing designs are allowed to compete. Dirigibles, lighter-than-air craft, gyrocopters or helicopters are not allowed to compete, but are welcome to demonstrate their capability's hors-concurs. ©2003 SAE International 9 2004 Aero Design East & West Rules 20. REGULAR CLASS - WINGSPAN LIMITATIONS The minimum wing span may not be smaller than 305 cm (120 inches). The wing span is defined as the maximum overall width of the aircraft. Aircraft with a maximum overall width less than 305 cm (120 inches) shall be disqualified from the event. 20.1 Not Meeting the Minimum wingspan Aircraft not meeting the minimum wingspan limitation will be disqualified from the contest. If schedule permits, at the discretion of the contest director, the team may perform demonstration flights during the contest.

Airfoil Airfoil selection Year 2000: E 211 Year 2001: E 423 Year 2002: OAF 102 Research: E 214 Research: S 1223   Important Factor E122 E214 E423 OAF102 S1223 Cl 5 1 2 3 Cd 4 Construction Overall 50 30 33 38

CL&CD vs. AoA

Wing Calculation Coefficient of Drag Form Factor Drag Force Lift Force

Wing Calculations Wing: Re (S1223) 326529 Swet [in^2] 3016.6402   Re (S1223) 326529 Swet [in^2] 3016.6402 Wing Span [in] 120 Wing Chord [in] 12 Sref [in^2] 1440 Clmax 2.3648 Cf (turbulent) 0.005559594 Cf (laminar) 0.002324006 t/c 0.121 x/c 0.2 FF 1.384435888 Cdmin (turb) 0.016124153 Cdmin (laminar) 0.006740173

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

Wing Shape Wing Efficiency Stall Characteristic Construct. Overall Rectangular Wing Advantages: Greater aileron control East to construct Disadvantages: Not efficient in terms of stall and drag Tapered Wing Decrease drag / Increase lift Harder to construct Not as efficient in terms of stall and drag Elliptical Wing Minimum drag Most efficient compared to rect. and tapered Hardest to construct Wing Efficiency Stall Characteristic Construct. Overall Importance 4 5 65 Rectangular 56 Tapered 52 Elliptical 2 48

Control Surface Affect

Wing Construction Balsa Wood Risers Bass Wood Spars Dowel Leading Edge Balsa Wood Trailing Edge Honer Plate

Rib Design

Wing Design

Wing

Wing Stress Analysis Max stress = 330.9 psi

Fuselage Guidelines 16.5 Payload 16.5.1 Payload and Payload Support The payload must consist of a support assembly and plates. 21. CARGO BAY/MINIMUM CARGO VOLUME Regular Class aircraft shall be capable of carrying and fully enclosing a rectangular block measuring 6 inches by 5 inches by 4 inches. During technical inspection, compliance with this rule shall be tested by inserting a block with these dimensions into the aircraft. This block must be easily inserted and removed without application of excess force during insertion or extraction, and the aircraft must be structurally airworthy with the block installed. When the aircraft is ready to fly, the bay must be fully enclosed. The cargo bay must be shown clearly in the design plans, with dimensions included. Note: The block does not guarantee enough area for your required weight. 21.1 Undersized Cargo Bay – Penalty Planes that are unable to fit the 6 inches by 5 inches by 4 inches block into their cargo bay will not be eligible to fly. 22. REQUIRED ENGINE Regular Class aircraft must be powered by a single, unmodified O.S. .61FX with E-4010 Muffler. No muffler extensions or headers that fit between the engine cylinder and the muffler may be used. Muffler baffles must be installed, and must be unmodified from the factory installed configuration. No fuel pumps are allowed. While the engine may not be modified from its stock configuration, two specific components may be installed on the engine for convenience and/or safety purposes: · Remote needle valves, including needle valves that may be adjusted in flight are allowed. · Tubes that redirect the exhaust flow may be affixed to the exhaust pipe. Note: engine tear-down and inspection may be performed by the competition officials at any time during the competition.

Fuselage Calculation Dimension: 4in x 5in x 25 in Coefficient of Drag Form Factor Drag Force

Fuselage Design and Calculations   length 25 in width 5 planforrm area 151 in^2 wetted area 605 fuselage/boom density 0.002175 slugs/ft^3 coefficient of viscosity 3.677E-07 slugs/ft-sec Velocity (flight speed) 51 ft/sec Re (turbulent) 628484.4982 l/d Form factor 1.4925 Cf 0.004883112 Cd min (turbulent) 0.029200444

Fuselage Construction Wire frame Pros: Very Strong and sturdy Affordable Cons: Heavy Difficult to construct Cast Molding Pros: Very accurate shape Aerodynamic advantages Strong frame No assembly required Cons: unaffordable Difficult to design a mold No spare parts Panels Pros: Lightweight Easy to construct Easy to assemble Affordable Cons: Not very strong

Fuselage Design Panels Wireframe Cast Mold 5 3 4 2 90 82 71 59 1 Importance Panels Wire frame Cast Mold Construction 5 3 4 Weight Cost 2 Strength Total 90 82 71 59 Ranking 1 Panels Wireframe Cast Mold

Selection Engine Engine Cargo Bay Cargo Bay Panel Fuselage Fuel Tank Battery Radio Receiver Fuel Tank Battery Radio Receiver Engine Engine Cargo Bay Cargo Bay Panel Fuselage Final design Panel Fuselage Previous design

Fuselage

Fuselage Fuselage cover Fuselage base Payload Battery/ Receiver /Fuel tank Engine: O.S. .61FX Prop/ Nose

Boom Design and Calculations Tail Boom:   Re 1835174.735 length boom 48 in length fuselage 25 length fuselage/boom 73 Swet 28 in^2 Sref 14 Cf (turbulent) 0.004001212 Cd min (turbulent) 0.008402546

Tail Boom 1 spar 2 spars 3 spars 3 or more panels 4 5 3 65 55 56 57 51 Importance 1 spar 2 spars 3 spars 3 or more panels Construction 4 5 Weight 3 Strength Total 65 55 56 57 51 Ranking 2 1

Selection Three Spar Truss design

Tail Calculation Coefficient of lift = 0 Coefficient of drag = 0.01 Lift Force Drag Force (H) Drag Force (V)

Tail Design and Calculations Tail stabilizer does not provide lift to plane. Symmetrical airfoil is needed for vertical tail. Horizontal tail:   Vertical Tail: Re (NACA 0012) 175975.6 Re (NACA0012) 246365.9 chord (MAC) 7 in 9.8 Swet in^2 189 Wing Span 40 Tail height 24 Sref 280 235.2 Clmax Cf (laminar) 0.003166 0.002675 t/c 0.12 x/c 0.287 FF 1.271607 Cdmin (laminar) 0.0027339

Tail Matrix 5 4 3 65 57 52 47 48 1 2 Importance Conventional Tail T-Tail H-Tail Triple Tail V-Tail Construction 5 4 3 Surface Area/ Drag Control/ Stability Total 65 57 52 47 48 Ranking 1 2

Tail Vertical Tail Stabilizer Horizontal Tail Stabilizer 13.5 inches controls the horizontal movement of plane keeps the nose of the plane from swinging from side to side Horizontal Tail Stabilizer 36 inches controls vertical movement of plane prevents an up-and-down motion of the nose

Tail Design Rib Design

Landing Gear Importance Factor Bent Rod Nose Bent Rod Tail Solid Nose Solid Tail Without Rod Steerability 3 5 4 Impact 2 Construction Total 50 37 33 39 41 With Rod 3.5 4.5 44.5 40.5 44 46

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

Landing Gear Design 1 & 2 Analysis Main Landing Gear Modified Truss Design Modified for Lighter Weight Aluminum Max Deflection 1.890e-4 in Stress Max 2.651e+2 Psi Standard Main Landing Gear Aluminum Max Deflection .2238 in Stress Max 6.162e3 Psi

Landing Gear Design 3 & 4 Analysis Main Landing Gear Truss Design Aluminum Stress Max 6.783e+2 Psi Max Deflection 1.841e-3 in Main Landing Gear Modified Truss Design Aluminum Max Deflection 1.342e-3 in Stress Max 5.332e+2 Psi

Final Landing Gear Design Analysis Main Landing Gear with Rod Aluminum Max Deflection .0196 in Stress Max 1.651 Psi Last years final design

Landing Gear Configuration Tail Dragger Tricycle Not decided until Spring Perform testing on which is more efficient

Landing Gear Construction Aluminum Tie Rod

Take-Off Distance Take off Velocity Mass of plane Initial Coefficient of Lift Initial Coefficient of Drag

Take-Off Distance K constant Take-off Drag Static Thrust Force balance at take-off

Take-Off Distance Take-Off Distance Equation Separation of Variables Final Take-Off Distance

Landing Run Distance Differential Equation of Motion Landing ground runway Coefficients A and B Stall Velocity

Landing Run Distance Touchdown Velocity Coefficient of Lift and drag at Coefficient B Landing Distance

Computer Aided Drawing of Design: ME 423 Senior Design, Fall 2003. 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 West Competition in Fort Worth, TX S1223 airfoil balsa wood risers construction of stabilizers and wings Rectangular wing planform Horner plates (winglets) for improved flight characteristics Unitized body fuselage Dihedral Wing 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 Wingspan: 10ft Engine: FX OS 2 stroke motor 0.61 cubic inches 1.9 hp Minimum Cargo Area: 120 in3 Cargo Weight: 35 pounds Empty Plane Weight: 10 pounds Plane Length: 7.5ft Plane Height: 1 ft

Final Design

Final Design

Goals Intercession Next Semester Compete in June Make a budget Complete construction early Test Landing Gear Configuration Test Plane design and modify if necessary Compete in June

Summary Objectives Schedule/Progress Design Concepts and Analysis Airfoil Fuselage Tail Landing Gear Goals

Gracias Thank You Merci