1

Systems Design Review Presentation Joe Appel Todd Beeby Julie Douglas Konrad Habina Katie Irgens Jon Linsenmann David Lynch Dustin Truesdell 2

Outline Mission statement Design requirements Concept generation and selected concepts Technology and effects Engine sizing and technology Constraint diagrams Sizing code Stability, CoG and Tail Sizing Summary of aircraft concepts Next Steps 3

Mission Statement Design an Environmentally Responsible Aircraft (ERA) that lowers noise, minimizes emissions, and reduces fuel burn Utilize new technology to develop a competitive medium-size aircraft that meets the demands of transportation for continental market Deliver a business plan focusing on capitalizing on growing markets Submit final design to NASA ERA College Student Challenge 4

Major Design Requirements NASA ERA Goals 5 Large twin aisle reference configuration = Boeing LR

Major Design Requirements Market Goals – 200 passengers – Intra - Continental Range 3200 Nautical Miles Operability – Maintenance – Turnaround time – Production and operating costs 6

Design Process Concept Generation – Created functional flow block diagram – Brainstormed design features – Assembled morphological matrix – Designed 8 initial concepts – Two rounds of Pugh's method 7

Concept Generation & Selection – Initial Concepts 8

Selected Concepts: Concept 1 9

Concept 1 10

Concept 1: Cabin Layout 11

Concept 2 12

Concept 2 13

Concept 2: Cabin Layout 14

Technologies Concept 1: – “Double bubble” fuselage – C - wing – Aft mounted engines Concept 2: – High wing – Under wing engines – High aspect ratio wing 15

Technologies On both concepts – Laminar flow – Composite Materials 16 Courtesy NASA

Technology Effects Double Bubble Fuselage – 19% fuel burn reduction, 15 min load/unload time reduction, pressurization difficulties C – wing – 11% reduction in induced drag, increased wing weight Aft mounted engines – 16 % fuel burn reduction, 5db noise reduction, maintenance issues 17

Technology Effects High Wing – Allows for GTF to be fixed in under wing configuration Under Wing Engines – No increase in maintenance time or cost High AR Wing – 1% increase in span = 1.7% decrease in induced drag Laminar Flow – 25% laminar flow on wing = 25% reduction in parasite drag, no leading edge devices limits slow speed ability 18

Technology Effects Composite Materials – Fiber Laminate Core(FLC) reduces over 40% directional strength, 15% lower density then Al – Alcoa Wing Box, 20% wing weight reduction 19 Photos courtesy of ALCOA

Engine Selection The Geared Turbo Fan (GTF) Pros - Fuel economy-up to 15% savings Noise-max of10dB reduction Emissions –surpass CAEP/6 by 50% for NOx Cons - Maintenance costs for gearbox 20 ared_turbofan.jpg

Engine Sizing Modeling the baseline engine to the GEnx-1B64 Modeled engine features: Weight=11,900 lbs; T:W=4.951; BPR=10; Pressure ratio 20:1 Genx-1B64 features: Weight=12822 lbs ; T:W=5.21; BPR=19/2; Pressure ratio 23:1 21 Altitude (ft)Thrust (lbf)TSFC (lb/hr/lbf) Courtesy GE Aircraft Engines

Engine Technology Effects Cheverons- Improved exhaust and bypass air mixing reducing engine exhaust noise by 3 dB Soft Vanes- Reduce fan noise by 1-2 dB by reducing unsteady pressure response on stator surface les/2006/november/Put_Nozzle.cf m Assessment of soft vane and metal foam engine noise reduction concepts-NASA Glenn

Major Performance Constraints Top of Climb: – Alt = 42,000 ft, Mach = G Maneuver: – Alt = 10,000 ft, V = 250 Kts, Landing Braking Ground High-Hot Cond. : – Length = 4000 ft, (Alt = 5000 ft, T = +15 F) Takeoff Accel. Ground High-Hot Cond. : – Length = 2000 ft Second Segment High-Hot Cond.: – 1 engine out, FAA min. climb gradient (2.4%) 23

InputL/DW e /W 0 αSFC c SFC l (CL) max C D0 V st V t/o V appr Value Unit-- lbf/ftlb/(lbf*h) -- knots Basic Assumptions 24 Concept 1 – Double Bubble Concept 2 – High Wing InputL/DW e /W 0 αSFC c SFC l (CL) max C D0 V st V t/o V appr Value Unit-- lbf/ftlb/(lbf*h) -- knots

Constraint Diagram: Concept 1 25 T sl /W 0 = 0.29 (lbf/lb) W 0 /S = 103 (lbs/ft 2 )

Constraint Diagram: Concept 2 26 T sl /W 0 = 0.26 (lbf/lb) W 0 /S = 84 (lb/ft 2 )

Trade Studies Aspect Ratio – Varied aspect ratio between 9 & 20 Mach Number – Target performance specifications yielded a mach number of 0.75 Sweep – Researched the effects of sweep between 0 ° & 35° on both concepts and chose appropriate sweep angles 27

Aircraft Design Mission ’5’ 8 9 Taxi & takeoff Climb Cruise Climb No range descent Loiter (30 min) Land Climb No range descent Land Attempt to Land Loiter (30 min) 6800 ftRange: 3200 nmi4950 ftFuel Reserves ft 28

Code Status Current Status Validated Code for Boeing and ER Split up sizing code into weight and drag components Location of center of gravity for Hybrid Concepts Validation using similar a/c: Boeing TOGW = lb, OEW = lb, W fuel = lb 29

InputL/DW e /W 0 αSFC c SFC l (CL) max C D0 V st V t/o V appr Value Unit-- lbf/ftlb/(lbf*h) -- knots Basic Assumptions 30 Concept 1 – Double Bubble Concept 2 – High Wing InputL/DW e /W 0 αSFC c SFC l (CL) max C D0 V st V t/o V appr Value Unit-- lbf/ftlb/(lbf*h) -- knots

Sizing Approach 31 Empty Weight – Statistical equations for components from Raymer Text – Weights added to Payload & Fuel to estimate TOGW – If fuel weight isn’t sufficient, weights adjusted (iteration) Fuel Weight – Segment fuel fractions using Range and Endurance eqns Drag – Component drag build-up Parasite, for each exposed aircraft component Induced, for wing and tail surfaces Wave, neglected for cruse Mach ~ 0.75

InputW 0 /ST SL /W 0 ARΛt/c(CL) max Value Unitlb/ft 2 -- deg-- Concept Descriptions 32 Concept 1 – Double Bubble Concept 2 – High Wing InputW 0 /ST SL /W 0 ARΛt/c(CL) max Value Unitlb/ft 2 -- deg--

Component Weight Breakdown 33 Double Bubble High Wing Fuselage:20585lbs Wing:22470lbs Engine:21600lbs Horiz Tail:9329lbs Vert Tail:2402lbs Furnishings:21717lbs Nacelle:5262lbs Landing Gear:4862lbs Avionics:1840lbs Electrical:1041lbs APU:616lbs Instruments:504lbs Hydraulics:326lbs Engine Ctrls:88lbs Fuselage: lbs Wing: lbs Engine: lbs Horiz Tail: 8845 lbs Vert Tail: 2918 lbs Furnishings: lbs Nacelle: 5262 lbs Landing Gear: 4751 lbs Avionics: 1840 lbs Electrical: 1041 lbs APU: 616 lbs Instruments: 580 lbs Hydraulics: 424 lbs Engine Ctrls: 88 lbs

Sizing Output 34 Double Bubble High Wing Empty Wt Fraction:0.48 TOGW:264400lbs OEW:128000lbs Empty Wt:126000lbs Fuel Wt:77500lbs Payload Wt:59000lbs Crew Wt:1800lbs Empty Wt Fraction:0.53 TOGW:257400lbs OEW:138000lbs Empty Wt:136200lbs Fuel Wt:60000lbs Payload Wt:60000lbs Crew Wt:1800lbs

Center of Gravity 35 Concept 1 – Double Bubble Static Margin = -20 Datum c.g. 73’ 65’ 69’ 122’ 125’ 130’ a.c. 93’

Center of Gravity 36 Concept 2 – High Wing Static Margin = -18 Datum 70’ 56’ 69’ 75’ 145’ 150’ 88’

Tail Sizing Relate wing aspects to tail – Wing yaw moments countered by wing span – Pitching moments counted by wing mean chord – Correlate using volume coefficients Equations 6.28 & 6.29 from Raymer 37

Concept 1: Exterior ’ 20’ 160’ 15.6’

Concept 1: Interior 39 Cabin height = 7ft 2in

Concept 1: LOPA 40

Concept 2: Exterior ’ 150’ 17.8’ 17.5’

Concept 2: Interior 42 Cabin height = 7ft 2in

Concept 2: LOPA 43

Compliance Matrix 44

Next Steps Drag component build up Carpet plots and more in-depth trade studies C.G. travel diagram Additional technology integration Improve engine model accuracy 45

On a scale of one to ten, 46

Concept Generation & Selection House of Quality 47

Appendix Morphological Matrix 48

Appendix Pugh’s Method 49