Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 1 Conceptual Design Review Robert Aungst Chris Chown Matthew Gray Adrian Mazzarella Brian Boyer Nick Gohn Charley Hancock Matt Schmitt Team 5

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 2 Outline of Presentation Mission Summary Payload Summary Final Concept Sizing Analysis Aerodynamic Analysis Performance Analysis Engine / Power Analysis Structures Analysis Stability and Controls Analysis

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 3 Concept of Operations Continuous area coverage of South Florida metropolitan areas and beaches for advertising purposes Advertisements change based on location and circumstance –Targeted advertising for specific areas –e.g. advertising Best Buy near Circuit City locations Large, fuselage mounted LED screens will deliver adverts Business will be developed around this new technology “Our mission is to provide an innovative advertising medium through the use of an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)”

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 4 Concept of Operations Operations based at Sebring Regional Airport, serving 3 high population areas Continuous area coverage of city for 18 hrs (6am to 12am) –3 missions total with 6 hour loiter each Seven planes needed for 3 city operations with 1 spare Coverage area map:

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 5 Major Design Requirements Customer Attributes –Advertisement visibility is paramount in order to meet customer’s needs –Must maintain a loiter speed which allows the public to retain the content of advertisements –For a successful venture, these two requirements must be clearly met in order to provide a superior service to the customer Engineering Requirements –Screen dimensions: 7.42’ x 30’ (each) –Loiter Speed: 68 ktas –Loiter Endurance: 6 hrs

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 6 Payload Summary - Screen Two High Intensity LED Screens –7.42 ft X 30 ft Viewable up to 1500 ft –500 lbs installed (each) –$120k cost (each) –Power Consumption 3.9 kw/5.2 hp, each Driven by DC Generator –Daytime Viewable Brightness: 6500 cd/m² –Dynamic Display 60 fps video/text –Weatherproof

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 7 Selected Aircraft Concept – “Walkaround” Diagram 7.42’ x 30’ advertising screen T-tail empennage configuration High wing configuration High aspect ratio, zero sweep wing Single 755 hp turboprop, propeller Retractable tricycle landing gear configuration

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 8 Selected Aircraft Concept – Key Figures RequirementFinal Value Screen Dimensions (each) 7.42’ x 30’ Loiter Velocity68 kts TAS Loiter Time6 hrs Cruise Range400 nm Loiter L/D (clean)21 Specific Fuel Consumption lb/BHP/hr Cruise Velocity165 kts TAS GTOW5585 lbs

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 9 Aircraft Sizing Analysis Sizing Prediction Methods –NASA Langley’s FLOPS Flight Optimization System –AVID’s ACS –Team Written Matlab Code Early Weight Predictions –Team written Matlab code –Empty weight - historical database trends Final Weight Predictions –NASA’s FLOPS Software –Empty weight - FLOPS general aviation equations

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 10 Aircraft Sizing Analysis Fixed Design Parameter Values Design ParameterFLOPS Input Value C L max 1.2 Thickness-to-Chord Ratio.10 Taper Ratio.39 Wing Sweep0° Effective Aspect Ratio16.8 Screen Size/Weight7.42” x 30” (drove fuselage dimensions input)/1000 lbs Weight CorrectionAdvanced Composites Assumed Atmosphere CorrectionStandard Atmosphere + 30°F

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 11 Aircraft Sizing Analysis Tail Sizing Strategy –Historical values for tail volume coefficient Raymer plus a “fudge” factor –Horizontal Tail Volume Coefficient: –Vertical Tail Volume Coefficient: 0.1 Engine Modeling –FLOPS turboprop model –Inputs compressor pressure ratio turbine inlet temperature design shaft horsepower design core airflow propeller efficiency propeller RPM

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 12 Carpet Plots Carpet Plots Procedures –Design Wing Loading: 12.5 lbs/ft 2 –Design Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0.24 –Increase and Decrease Wing Loading and Thrust-to-Weight Ratio by factors of approximately 20% and 40% –Determine from sizing code: Gross Takeoff Weight Landing Distance Takeoff Distance

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 13 Carpet Plot Design Area W/S = 12.5 T/W = 0.24

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 14 Trade Studies Using carpet plots –Design wing loading selected –Design thrust-to-weight ratio selected Trade Studies –Gross Weight Variations from: Payload weight Cruise distance Loiter time

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 15 Trade Studies - Payload Weights 1 LED Screen vs. 2 LED Screens Cruise Distance = 112 nm –1 LED Screen Payload Weight: 500 lbs Gross Takeoff Weight: 3942 lbs Empty Weight: 2368 lbs Fuel Weight: 1008 lbs –2 LED Screen Payload Weight: 1000 lbs Gross Takeoff Weight: 5431 lbs Empty Weight: 2996 lbs Fuel Weight: 1360 lbs

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 16 Trade Studies - Cruise Distance 1 LED Screen vs. 2 LED Screens Varying Cruise Distances Cruise Range:1 LED Screen (Payload = 500lbs) 2 LED Screen (Payload = 1000lbs) 175 N.M. Cruise GTOW: 4243 lbs. Empty: 2491 lbs. Fuel: 1184 lbs. GTOW: 5869 lbs. Empty: 3186 lbs. Fuel: 1605 lbs. 150 N.M. Cruise GTOW: 4118 lbs. Empty: 2440 lbs. Fuel: 1111 lbs. GTOW: 5686 lbs. Empty: 3106 lbs. Fuel: 1503 lbs. 100 N.M. Cruise GTOW: 3889 lbs. Empty: 2347 lbs. Fuel: 976 lbs. GTOW: 5356 lbs. Empty: 2963 lbs. Fuel: 1318 lbs.

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 17 Trade Studies - Loiter Length 1 LED Screen vs. 2 LED Screens Varying Loiter Lengths Loiter Length:1 LED Screen (Payload = 500lbs) 2 LED Screen (Payload = 1000lbs) 4 hr. Loiter GTOW: 3336 lbs. Empty: 2124 lbs. Fuel: 650 lbs. GTOW: 4564 lbs. Empty: 2626 lbs. Fuel: 868 lbs. 6 hr. Loiter GTOW: 3942 lbs. Empty: 2368 lbs. Fuel: 1008 lbs. GTOW: 5431 lbs. Empty: 2996 lbs. Fuel: 1360 lbs. 8 hr. Loiter GTOW: 4127 lbs. Empty: 2387 lbs. Fuel: 1173 lbs. GTOW: 6682 lbs. Empty: 3570 lbs. Fuel: 2029 lbs.

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide ft 42 ft Aircraft Description – 3-view 78 ft 5 ft 6 ft 10 ft 3 ft

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 19 Aircraft Description - Internal Layout Screen Engine Generator Avionics Nose Camera Tail Camera Ballistic Recovery System 42 ft. 13 ft Rear Landing Gear Fuel Nose Landing Gear (beneath engine)

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 20 Aircraft Description - Retractable Tricycle Landing Gear Nose Gear: –4 ft. from the nose –Center of plane –Retracts to the rear –3.25 ft. long strut.1 ft diameter –Oleopneumatic shock- strut with drag brace –2 Type VII tires (redundancy).4 ft width.75 ft radius 100 psi Rated at 174 kts Main Gear: –22 ft. from the nose –Edges of the fuselage –Retract to the rear –5.75 ft. long struts.14 ft diameter –Oleopneumatic shock- struts with drag braces –Type VII tires.4 ft width.75 ft radius 225 psi Rated at 217 kts

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 21 Aircraft Description - Landing Gear Design Considerations No tail strike on landing (ground clearance > 1.2 ft) –2 ft ground clearance Propeller ground clearance (>.84 ft) –2 ft ground clearance Tipback prevention (> 15˚) –Angle of 19˚ off vertical from main gear to center of gravity Overturn prevention (< 63˚) –Overturn angle 45˚ Optimal weight sharing (8-15% by nose) –Nose gear carries 10.4% Main gear retraction –Thin fairing opens at top of screen –Screen assembled in modules

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 22 Aerodynamic Design Wing design summary Wing details Airfoil selection and performance characteristics Parasite drag build-up Aircraft drag polars Other aerodynamic considerations

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 23 Aerodynamic Design – Wing Design Summary ParameterValueUnits Wing area434.51ft 2 Wing span77.99ft Root chord8.03ft Tip chord3.11ft Mean aerodynamic chord5.93ft

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 24 Aerodynamic Design – Wing Design Summary ParameterValueUnits Taper ratio0.39Non-dimensional Geometric aspect ratio14.0Non-dimensional Effective aspect ratio (due to winglets) 16.8Non-dimensional Quarter chord sweep0.0 ° Leading edge sweep0.0 ° Dihedral0.0 °

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 25 Aerodynamic Design – Wing Spanwise Twist Distribution Wing twist designed: –to achieve a minimum induced drag spanwise lift distribution –to provide desirable stall characteristics Preliminary twist distribution derived using lifting-line theory

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 26 Aerodynamic Design – Wing Spanwise Thickness Distribution Thickness distribution designed: –to minimize the form drag of the wing –to provide potential weight savings Preliminary thickness distribution based on current aircraft designs

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 27 Aerodynamic Design - Airfoil Selection - Wing Wing Requirements –Promotes laminar flow –Delays transition to turbulent flow In order to accomplish this, the NACA ,10,08 airfoil was chosen for the different thicknesses required Drag Polar & Lift-curve slope for NACA NACA

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 28 Aerodynamic Design - Airfoil Selection - Tail Vertical Tail –Requires a symmetric airfoil to prevent side forces Horizontal Tail –Must allow for stability of aircraft Chose NACA 0012 for both vertical and horizontal tail –By using the same characteristic airfoil for both, it will reduce manufacturing costs –It meets the symmetry requirements –A 12% thickness, this allows structural considerations NACA 0012

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 29 Aerodynamic Design – Parasite Drag Build-up Two methods were used to predict parasite drag: –Component build-up method* –FLOPS (Flight Optimization System) breakdown Data from both predictions were analyzed and compared, giving a parasite drag prediction *Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach; D.P. Raymer; 2006.

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 30 Aerodynamic Design – Parasite Drag Build-up ComponentForm Factor Reference Reynolds Number [10 6 ] Skin Friction Coefficient Wetted Area [ ft 2 ] Drag Coefficient Wing Fuselage Horizontal Tail Vertical Tail Miscellaneous Drag Protuberance Drag Total Parasite Drag = Parasite drag build-up [clean configuration]:

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 31 Aerodynamic Design – Parasite Drag Build-up Parasite drag breakdown [clean configuration]:

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 32 Aerodynamic Design – Drag Polars Aircraft drag polar [clean configuration]:

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 33 Aerodynamic Design – Drag Polars Aircraft drag polar [dirty configuration]:

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 34 Aerodynamic Design – Other Considerations Winglets Proposed to add winglets to reduce the wing induced drag Applicable to this aircraft due to the design mission characteristics: –Long endurance –Low design flight speed. Winglets increase the effective aspect ratio – sizing code uses the effective aspect ratio No detailed design carried out Further detailed aerodynamic design would incorporate winglet design High-lift devices With an approach speed of 67 keas, it was felt that high- lift devices, at this stage of the design, were not needed

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 35 Performance Specific excess power Power available and required Flight envelope V-n diagram Performance summary

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 36 Performance – Specific Excess Power Specific excess power, at maximum gross take- off weight:

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 37 Performance – Power Available and Power Required Power available and power required, at maximum gross take-off weight:

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 38 Performance – Flight Envelope Flight envelope, at maximum gross take-off weight:

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 39 Performance – V-n Diagram V-n diagram (maneuver loads), at maximum gross take-off weight:

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 40 Performance – Turn Performance Turn radius, at maximum gross take-off weight:

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 41 Performance – Turn Performance Time to turn 180° at maximum gross take-off weight:

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 42 Performance – Performance Summary Stall speed51keas Loiter speed67keas Cruise speed162keas Maximum speed223keas Approach speed*67keas Best range speed**46keas Best endurance speed61keas Operating Speeds *Approach speed based on 1.3*V s1-g **Note: best range speed is below the stall speed

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 43 Performance – Performance Summary Take-off distance***1910ft Landing distance***3650ft Service Ceiling****30800ft Wing Loading12.5lbs/ ft 2 Design Point L/D21.0Non-dimensional Other ***Take-off and landing distances based on standard sea-level conditions, temperature STD +30F ****Service ceiling based on the FAR requirement of a climb rate of 100 fpm for propeller aircraft

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 44 Propulsion System – Engine and Propeller Honeywell TPE Turboprop –Power: 776 shp (S.L. static) –SFC:.577 max power –Cost: $100k-$150k –Dry Weight: 355 lbs –Installed Weight: 500 lbs –Prop Shaft Speed: 2000 RPM Propeller –Hartzell HC-B3TN-5 –Matched to TPE-331 –3-Blade, Variable Pitch –Constant Speed, Feathering –Steel Hub, Aluminum Blades –Tip Mach: 0.82 –J: 0.90 AF: 99.8 –η: Cp: 0.114

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 45 Power Budget Power Source –Up to 50 hp extracted from engine –D.C. generator attached to accessory gearbox Power Requirements –LED Screens 5.2 hp = 10.4 hp –MicroPilot MP-Day/Nightview Cameras 6 watts = 0.02 hp –Avionics Components Communications (VHF/UHF), Navigation (GPS), Flight Control, Telemetry, Video 20 kW = 26.8 hp ~37 hp used, 13 hp reserve available

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 46 Structure - Internal Structural Layout 13 ft 78 ft 42 ft Rear Spar Main Spar Front Spar Ribs Stringers 2.5 ft 1.88 ft 3.13 ft 1.88 ft 1.25 ft Key: Stringer: Rib: Spar:

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 47 Structure - Aircraft Material Selection Skin (Aramid/Epoxy): 49% weight savings, same modulus, 10x the ultimate strength High strength resists FOD damage Stringers (Boron/Aluminum): Same weight, but 3x modulus increases fuselage rigidity Inhibits LED screen damage from fuselage strain Spars (Boron/Aluminum): Same weight, but 3x modulus increases wing rigidity Large span would otherwise exhibit wing bending; increases aerodynamic efficiency Ribs (Carbon/Epoxy): 43% weight savings, 2x stiffer inhibit wing twist High wing-twist resistance increases aerodynamic efficiency and endurance

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 48 Stability and Control- Weight Summary MASS AND BALANCE SUMMARY% TOTALPOUNDS Wing Horizontal Tail Vertical Tail Fuselage Landing Gear STRUCTURE TOTAL Engines Fuel System - Tanks and Plumbing PROPULSION TOTAL Surface Controls Hydraulics Electrical Avionics Ballistic Recovery System SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT TOTAL Weight Empty Unusable Fuel Engine Oil0.169 Operating Weight Advertising Screens Zero Fuel Weight Mission Fuel Ramp (Gross) Weight Aircraft and Component Weights FLOPS sizing code FLOPS is widely used for aircraft of this size The results, overall, agree with earlier sizing studies

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 49 Stability and Control – Static Margin Static Margin –From internal layout and weight summary Fuel tank located near the c.g. –Very little c.g. travel as fuel is burned Static margin remains constant throughout mission 42 ft. 13 ft ft 9 in Location (ft) C.G Xn20.70 SM 0.13 Datum

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 50 Cost Aircraft development and maintenance costs estimated from FLOPS cost model Production includes 7 complete aircraft with 2 spare engines Payroll assumes 21 person staff, with a rotation of 12 operators Revenue model based on servicing 3 cities, 18 hours per day, 50 weeks per year Startup Costs Development$2,619, Production$26,845, Office Equipment$100, Payroll$7,680, Cost of Manufacturing Site$240, Advertising$2,160, Subtotal$39,644, Operating Costs (Yearly) Fuel$3,359, Maintenance$9,044, Payroll$5,260, Advertising$720, Hangar Costs$33, Subtotal$18,418, Summary Yearly Revenue$25,130, Yearly Income$6,712, Years to Break Even6

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 51 Conclusions – Selected Concept 7.42’ x 30’ advertising screen T-tail empennage configuration High wing configuration High aspect ratio, zero sweep wing Single 755 hp turboprop, propeller Retractable tricycle landing gear configuration

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 52 Conclusions - Design Compliance RequirementFinalTargetInitial Screen Dimensions (each) 7.42’ x 30’ 8’ x 45’ Loiter Velocity68 kts TAS< 65 kts< 55 kts Loiter Time6 hrs> 6 hrs> 8 hrs Cruise Range400 nm> 400 nm Loiter L/D (clean)21> 16> 22 Specific Fuel Consumption lb/BHP/hr < 0.5 lb/BHP/hr Cruise Velocity165 kts TAS> 80 kts> 135 kts

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 53 Conclusions - Project Feasibility While technically feasible, the project has major pitfalls FAA regulations greatly restrict flight over populated areas Business case is overly optimistic of industry Price point is very high Cost model assumes infinite demand Innovative idea could invigorate industry

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 54 Conclusions - Future Work Business –Market Research to confirm business feasbility Aerodynamic Analysis –CFD Analysis to confirm FLOPS results Structural Analysis –Generation of predicted loads –Finite Element Analysis Stability –Lateral Stability Analysis –Aileron and Rudder Sizing –Elevator Sizing

Conceptual Design Review - AAE Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 55 Questions? Thank you for your time! Comments and Questions?