SAE Aero Design ® East 2005 University of Cincinnati AeroCats Team #039 SAE Aero Design ® East 2005 University of Cincinnati AeroCats Team #039 Design.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Gliders Flight Stability
Advertisements

College of Engineering and Computer Science Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering Wright State University Regular Class Aircraft SAE Aero.
Group 3 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane
SAE Aero Design ® East 2005 University of Cincinnati AeroCats Team #039 SAE Aero Design ® East 2005 University of Cincinnati AeroCats Team #039 Design.
Daniel Graves –Project Lead James Reepmeyer – Lead Engineer Brian Smaszcz– Airframe Design Alex Funiciello – Airfoil Design Michael Hardbarger – Control.
Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Proposal Presentation February 17 th, 2005 Matthew Chin Advisor: Prof. S. Thangam Aaron Dickerson Brett J. Ulrich Tzvee Wood.
October 28, 2011 Christopher Schumacher (Team Lead) Brian Douglas Christopher Erickson Brad Lester Nathan Love Patrick Mischke Traci Moe Vince Zander.
Lesson 13: Aircraft Structures And Flight Controls
The Black Pearl Design Team: Ryan Cobb Jacob Conger Christopher Cottingham Travis Douville Josh Johnson Adam Loverro Tony Maloney.
SAE AERO Chase Beatty (Team Leader) Brian Martinez (Organizer) Mohammed Ramadan (Financial Officer) Noe Caro (Historian) Brian Martinez.
Group 3 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane William Gerboth, Jonathan Landis, Scott Munro, Harold Pahlck February 18, 2010.
SAE Aero Design Guidelines Rev A, 2013 Aero Design Oral Presentation Guidelines How to Deliver a Presentation The Judges will Notice.
Stability and Control.
Chase Beatty (Team Leader) Brian Martinez (Organizer) Mohammed Ramadan (Financial Officer) Noe Caro (Historian) SAE AERO Chase Beatty.
Team USYD National Aircraft Design-Build-Fly Competition.
1 Design Group 2 Kat Donovan - Team Leader Andrew DeBerry Mike Kinder John Mack Jeff Newcamp Andrew Prisbell Nick Schumacher Conceptual Design for AME.
Project Presentation Boiler Xpress December 5, 2000 Team Members Oneeb Bhutta Matthew Basiletti Ryan Beech Micheal Van Meter AAE 451 Aircraft Design.
AME 441: Conceptual Design Presentation
D & C PDR #1 AAE451 – Team 3 November 4, 2003
Dane BatemaBenoit Blier Drew Capps Patricia Roman Kyle Ryan Audrey Serra John TapeeCarlos Vergara Critical Design Review Team 1.
Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level 1.
Christopher Cottingham
The Barn Owls Chris “Mo” Baughman Kate Brennan Christine Izuo Dan Masse Joe “Sal” Salerno Paul Slaboch Michelle Smith.
Group 13 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Stephen McNulty Richard-Marc Hernandez Jessica Pisano Yoosuk Kee Chi Yan Project Advisor: Siva Thangam.
March 3, Structures and Weights 2 PDR Michael Caldwell Jeff Haddin Asif Hossain James Kobyra John McKinnis Kathleen Mondino Andrew Rodenbeck Jason.
Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level 1.
Group 3 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane
Patrick Dempsey Bridget Fitzpatrick Heather Garber Keith Hout Jong Soo Mok AAE451 Aircraft Design Professor Dominick Andrisani First Flight November 21,
Dane BatemaBenoit Blier Drew Capps Patricia Roman Kyle Ryan Audrey Serra John TapeeCarlos Vergara Team 1: Structures 1 PDR Team “Canard” October 12th,
Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Group #1 Matthew Chin, Aaron Dickerson Brett J. Ulrich, Tzvee Wood Advisor: Professor Siva Thangam December 9 th, 2004.
Review Chapter 12. Fundamental Flight Maneuvers Straight and Level Turns Climbs Descents.
Team 5 Structures PDR Presented By: Ross May James Roesch Charles Stangle.
Group 13 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Stephen McNulty Richard-Marc Hernandez Jessica Pisano Yoosuk Kee Chi Yan Project Advisor: Siva Thangam.
1 AE 440 Structures Discipline Lecture 6 Eric Loth For AE 440 A/C Lecture.
Basic Aerodynamic Theory and Drag
Principles of Flight Tim Freegarde
Aero Design Group 10 Dimitrios Arnaoutis Alessandro Cuomo
[SAE Heavy Lift Cargo Plane] Joe Lojek : James Koryan : Justin Sommer : Ramy Ghaly [Ducks on a Plane] : Advisor Professor Thangam : Thursday, February.
The Advanced Modeling Aeronautics Team’s Humanitarian Aid Delivery Aircraft Captains: Ilya Anishchenko, Alex Beckerman, Logan Halstrom Faculty.
Replicating the 1903 Wright Flyer
Introduction Aerodynamic Performance Analysis of A Non Planar C Wing using Experimental and Numerical Tools Mano Prakash R., Manoj Kumar B., Lakshmi Narayanan.
SAE AERO Chase Beatty (Team Leader) Brian Martinez (Organizer) Mohammed Ramadan (Financial Officer) Noe Caro (Historian) Chase Beatty.
2015 SAE Aero East Design Team 2015 SAE Aero Design East Team Mid-Term Status Report (3/5/2015)
The Lumberjacks Team /16/12 Brian Martinez.
Group 10 Dimitrios Arnaoutis Alessandro Cuomo Gustavo Krupa Jordan Taligoski David Williams 1.
HALE UAV Preliminary Design AERSP 402B Spring 2014 Team: NSFW Nisherag GandhiThomas Gempp Doug RohrbaughGregory Snyder Steve StanekVictor Thomas SAURON.
DESIGN OF THE 1903 WRIGHT FLYER REPLICA MADRAS INSTITUE OF TECHNOLOGY CHENNAI - 44.
1 Lecture 4: Aerodynamics Eric Loth For AE 440 A/C Lecture Sept 2009.
AAE 451 Aircraft Design First Flight Boiler Xpress November 21, 2000
Final Design Team 6 December 2 nd, UAV Team Specializations David Neira – Power & Propulsion Josiah Shearon – Materials Selection & Fabrication.
Subsystem Level Design Review.  Project Review  System Level Changes ◦ Tail Dragger ◦ Airfoil Change and Discussion  Subsystem Selection ◦ Fuselage.
Gliders in Flight Stability for Straight and Level Flight.
Structures PDR 1 Team Boiler Xpress Oneeb Bhutta Matthew Basiletti Ryan Beech Micheal VanMeter October 12, 2000.
2015 SAE Aero Design East Team
Patrick Dempsey Bridget Fitzpatrick Heather Garber Keith Hout Jong Soo Mok Structures Preliminary Design Review #1 October 12, 2000.
Yaqoub Almounes John Cowan Josh Gomez Michael Medulla Mohammad Qasem
Team 3 Structures and Weights PDR 2
2007 SAE Heavy Lift Cargo Plane
Aircraft Design Process
SAE Aero 2017 Midterm Presentation Joe Zongolowicz, Nick Montana, Frank Dixon, Kevin Scheventer, Kathy Hansen, Marquis Ward, Gerald Short, Zhangsiwen Xiao,
SAE Aero 2017 Status Update Joe Zongolowicz, Thomas Houck, Kathy Hansen, Gerald Short, Marquis Ward, Zhangsiwen Xiao, Coleman Gordon, Kevin Scheventer,
Team “Canard” September 28th, 2006
SAE Heavy Lift Cargo Plane
Structures and Weights 1 QDR
Airplane Parts and Theory of Flight
Team One Purdue University AAE 451 Project Debriefing 28 April, 2005
Team “Canard” September 19th, 2006
ME 423 Design Progress Nugget Chart
Presentation Name Stability for Straight and Level Flight
Stability for Straight and Level Flight
Presentation transcript:

SAE Aero Design ® East 2005 University of Cincinnati AeroCats Team #039 SAE Aero Design ® East 2005 University of Cincinnati AeroCats Team #039 Design Team Todd BarhorstDavid ChalkSteven J. Coppess Matthew CrummeyMatthew GoettkeKevin Harsley John LouisJames MountAlex Sullivan John Vandenbemden

Outline Basic Configuration Aerodynamics Structural Design Weights & Balance Stability & Controls Propulsion Performance & Optimization Conclusion

Box Wing – Span limitation dictates two wings, for greater planform area – Winglets draw vortices away from the wingtips, improving wing efficiency – Minimizes induced drag – Provides optimal Oswald span efficiency factor Traditional Tail – Relatively lightweight – Easy to construct Basic Configuration Example values for gap/span ratio of 0.2

Aerodynamics: Design Refinement TORNADO code used to analyze aerodynamics – Based upon Vortex Lattice Theory Wing gap – Gap-to-span ratio set to 0.6 Due to practical limitations Forward stagger (15 in) – Fuselage accessibility – Minimal efficiency impact Tapered winglets – Decreased weight – Decreased side area Improved lateral stability – Negligible effect on performance Final wing efficiency: e = 2.2

Application – High Lift – Low Reynolds Number Re = 300,000 Modified Eppler E423 – Advantages Relatively small moment Ease of construction – Modifications De-cambered by 25% Improved drag polar, higher L/D 2D Analysis performed with XFOIL C l Max 1.8 CmCm Aerodynamics: Main Wing Airfoil

NACA 0014 − Relatively High C L – Allows for smaller elevator – Produces minimal C D throughout operating conditions Re = 300,000 2D XFoil Data Widest of Drag Buckets Viewed Aerodynamics: Horizontal & Vertical Tail Airfoil

Wind-tunnel airfoil testing – UC Instrumentation – Differential Pressure Sensor Aerodynamics: Wind Tunnel Testing (Main Airfoil) Test Conditions – Re: 200,000 – 400,000 – AOA: -4º – 17º Flight Telemetry Package – AOA Probe – Pitot-Static Probe – RPM Sensor – Temperature Sensor Experimental vs. Published Data - Tunnel Data Verified

Stall Aerodynamics: Lift vs. Alpha & Drag Buildup Total Drag 3D Wing Fuselage Horizontal Tail Vertical Tail Max L/D Max Climb Angle Lift Off Stall Total A/C Total A/C Trim 3D Wing Max L/D Max Climb Angle Lift Off Stall

Aerodynamics: Drag Polar & Lift-to-Drag Tot al A/ C Total A/C Trim 3D Wi ng Max Clim b Angl e Lift Off StallStall Total A/C Total A/C Trim 3D Wing Max L/D Max Climb Angle Lift Off Stall Total A/C Total A/C Trim 3D Wing Max L/D Max Climb Angle Lift Off Stall

Structural Design: Airfoil Construction Semi-monocoque construction method – Utilized for all airfoils (wings, winglets, and tails) Components: – Composite-reinforced spars Spar caps: Graphlite © carbon fiber rods – High strength-to-weight ratio – Main load-bearing members Fiberglass shear web – Balsa wood ribs Lightweight Secondary members – Front portion of D-spar Fiberglass skin – Monokote skin

Structural Design: Airfoil Construction Semi-monocoque construction method – Utilized for all airfoils (wings, winglets, and tails) Components: – Composite-reinforced spars Spar caps: Graphlite © carbon fiber rods – High strength-to-weight ratio – Main load-bearing members Fiberglass shear web – Balsa wood ribs Lightweight Secondary members – Front portion of D-spar Fiberglass skin – Monokote skin

Structural Design: Airfoil Construction Semi-monocoque construction method – Utilized for all airfoils (wings, winglets, and tails) Components: – Composite-reinforced spars Spar caps: Graphlite © carbon fiber rods – High strength-to-weight ratio – Main load-bearing members Fiberglass shear web – Balsa wood ribs Lightweight Secondary members – Front portion of D-spar Fiberglass skin – Monokote skin

Structural Design: Airfoil Construction Semi-monocoque construction method – Utilized for all airfoils (wings, winglets, and tails) Components: – Composite-reinforced spars Spar caps: Graphlite © carbon fiber rods – High strength-to-weight ratio – Main load-bearing members Fiberglass shear web – Balsa wood ribs Lightweight Secondary members – Front portion of D-spar Fiberglass skin – Monokote skin

Structural Design: Airfoil Construction Semi-monocoque construction method – Utilized for all airfoils (wings, winglets, and tails) Components: – Composite-reinforced spars Spar caps: Graphlite © carbon fiber rods – High strength-to-weight ratio – Main load-bearing members Fiberglass shear web – Balsa wood ribs Lightweight Secondary members – Front portion of D-spar Fiberglass skin – Monokote skin

Structural Design: Airfoil Construction Semi-monocoque construction method – Utilized for all airfoils (wings, winglets, and tails) Components: – Composite-reinforced spars Spar caps: Graphlite © carbon fiber rods – High strength-to-weight ratio – Main load-bearing members Fiberglass shear web – Balsa wood ribs Lightweight Secondary members – Front portion of D-spar Fiberglass skin – Monokote skin

Structural Design: Fuselage Semi-monocoque construction method Components – Bulkheads Carbon fiber High strength, lightweight Provides attach points – Skin Fiberglass Formed on full-scale foam model Lightweight – Stringers Graphlite © rods Embedded in skin

Structural Design: Fuselage Semi-monocoque construction method Components – Bulkheads Carbon fiber High strength, lightweight Provides attach points – Skin Fiberglass Formed on full-scale foam model Lightweight – Stringers Graphlite © rods Embedded in skin

Structural Design: Fuselage Semi-monocoque construction method Components – Bulkheads Carbon fiber High strength, lightweight Provides attach points – Skin Fiberglass Formed on full-scale foam model Lightweight – Stringers Graphlite © rods Embedded in skin

Structural Design: Fuselage Semi-monocoque construction method Components – Bulkheads Carbon fiber High strength, lightweight Provides attach points – Skin Fiberglass Formed on full-scale foam model Lightweight – Stringers Graphlite © rods Embedded in skin

Structural Design: Landing Gear Main gear struts – Laminar composite construction Stacked Graphlite © rods Wrapped with woven carbon fiber fabric – Analysis Stress & deflection calculations Experimental testing Other components – Spring steel front gear – Alumimum wheels

Main gear struts – Laminar composite construction Stacked Graphlite © rods Wrapped with woven carbon fiber fabric – Analysis Stress & deflection calculations Experimental testing Other components – Spring steel front gear – Alumimum wheels Structural Design: Landing Gear

Main gear struts – Laminar composite construction Stacked Graphlite © rods Wrapped with woven carbon fiber fabric – Analysis Stress & deflection calculations Experimental testing Other components – Spring steel front gear – Alumimum wheels

Weights & Balance CG Aerodynamic Center Neutral Point – 2.5 inches behind CG forward stability – Above fuselage pendulum effect Stability Verification – 2 flight tests – Pilot deemed all modes stable Neutral Point

Stability & Controls: Moment vs. Alpha C m as a function of AOA for three elevator deflections: 0º, and ± 5º C m as a function of AOA for three centers of gravity: nominal CG ± 1 inch

Propulsion: Torque & Power Curves Engine was specified: OS 0.61 FX engine, E-4010 muffler Static torque stand tests verified engine performance

Propulsion: Propeller Selection Static thrust tests were performed Propeller performance was quantified in terms of maximum thrust Previous UC performance aircraft used 14-inch propeller New design uses 14.5-inch propeller, with improved performance

Propulsion: Installed Power &Thrust Max power and thrust curves were determined via the propulsion model

Performance & Optimization: Trade Study Trade study determined viable wing chord length vs. total design weight Based upon 190 ft takeoff distance limit Minimum climb rate at takeoff  200 ft/min Used to determine final design: 1.5 ft chord, 32 lbf total design weight (22 lbf payload) 210 ft/min

Performance: Ground Roll & V-N Diagram

Conclusion Raising the bar – Box wing design Minimizes induced drag Optimal Oswald efficiency – Telemetry package Wind tunnel & flight testing Real time performance – Composite construction Advanced materials Great strength/weight

(group picture) Questions?

Stability & Controls: Lateral Motion Calculations (BACKUP) Sideslip Angle Roll Rate Yaw Rate Roll Angle Dutch Roll Spiral Mode Roll Mode

Performance: Payload Prediction Chart