1. James Bearman AJ Brinker Dean Bryson Brian Gershkoff Kuo Guo Joseph Henrich Aaron Smith

2.  Review of Aircraft Requirements  Concept Generation  Advanced Technology  Fuselage Layout  Constraint Analysis  Current Sizing Analysis  Summary  Next Steps 2

3.  Provide a versatile aircraft with medium range and capacity to meet the needs of a commercial aircraft market still expanding in the year 2058  Incorporate the latest in technology to provide reliability, efficiency, while fulfilling the need for an environmentally friendly transportation system  Possess the ability to operate at nearly any airfield 3

4. Mission Profiles Mission One Schaumburg to North Las Vegas 1300 nmi Mission Two South Bend to Burbank 1580 nmi Mission Three West Lafayette to Urbana-Champaign to Cancun 1200 nmi Mission Four Minneapolis to LAX 1330 nmi 4

5. Engineering Requirement ConditionTargetThreshold Takeoff Distance ≤ 2,500 ft3,500 ft Landing Distance ≤ 2,500 ft3,500 ft Takeoff Weight ≤ 80,000 lb100,000 lb Range ≥ 1800 nm1500 nm Maximum Cruise Speed ≥ 0.85 M0.75 M Maximum Passenger Capacity ≥ 11090 5

6.  Pugh’s Method  Choose Criterion  Generate Concepts  Evaluate  Improve  Iterate  Select “Finalists”  Analysis  Current Configuration Tube and Wing Bird of Prey Tandem Wing Maintenance Cost o-o Low Wt ooo Fuel Burn o-- Static Stability o-- Fuel Capacity o++ Fast o+o Clean Wing CL o-o Passenger Volume o+o Induced Drag o+- Parasite/Form Drag o-- Low Stall Speed o-- Low Alpha Req for T.O. o-+ Noise Factor o-- Small Airport Compatible o+- Aesthetic Appeal o+o Passenger Visibility o-- +062 o1616 -098 6

7. 7

8. 8

9. 9

10. 10 Tri-Tail Geared Turbofans Lifting Canard Composite Structure Possible Rear Egress Supercritical Airfoil Powered High-Lift Devices Advanced Avionics

11.  Composites  Stronger and Lighter than Metals  Glue replaces Fasteners  20% empty weight savings  Current Obstacle: Manufacturability and Repairability  AI/UAV  Reduction in flight crew  Potentially Lower Operational Cost  Reduced human error incidents  Automatic Flight Control  Current Obstacle: Reliability and Risk 11

12.  Pulse Detonation  Up to 10% fuel savings (GE)  Durable, Easy to Maintain  Capable of using Multiple Fuels  Current Obstacle: Noise http://www.seas.ucla.edu/combustion/images/pdwe/engine_schematic2.jpg 12

13.  Geared Turbofan  12% fuel savings  40% reduction in maintenance cost  70% lower emissions  30 dB less than stage 3 noise limit http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRHeft07/FRH0710/FR0710a1.jpg 13

14.  Unducted Fans  Increase of fuel economy of 35%  Increase in range of 45%  Increase in noise but current test models meet noise criteria  Blade-Out Risk http://www.md80.it/OLDFILES/immagini/thrust/McDUHB-3.jpg 14

15.  Magnetic Bearings  “Floating” shaft reduces friction in turbine engine  More thrust  Possible elimination of engine oil system  Current Obstacle: Heat generated by magnets  Vectored Thrust  Angled Thrust Provides Vertical Force  AV-8B Harrier II ▪ VTOL Weight: 22,000 lbs ▪ STOL (1400ft) Weight: 46,000 lbs  Reduce TO Runway Length  Reduce Approach Speed 15

16.  Circulation Control Wing  85% Increase in C Lmax  35% Reduction in power on approach speed  65% Reduction in landing ground roll  30% Reduction in lift off speed  60% Reduction in take off ground roll  75% Increase in typical payload/fuel at operating weight AIAA-57598-949 Advanced Circulation Control Wing System for Navy STOL Aircraft 16

17.  Blown Flaps  C Lmax > 7  Types ▪ Internally Blown ▪ Externally Blown ▪ Upper Surface Blowing  Reduce takeoff distance by as much as 74% W.H. Mason Some High Lift Aerodynamics 17

18.  Co-Flow Jet Flow Control  Test results show:  Reduction of C L =0 from 0° to -4°  Increase of C Lmax of 220% from 1.57 to 5.04  AoA C Lmax increase of 153% from 19° to 44°  Reduction of C Dmin (AoA=0°) from 0.128 to -0.036 AIAA 2005-1260 High Performance Airfoil Using Co-Flow Jet Flow Control 18

19.  TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reported  TRL 2 Concept and/or application formulated  TRL 3 Analytical and experimental proof-of concept  TRL 4 Component validation in lab environment  TRL 5 Component validation in relevant environment  TRL 6 Prototype demo in a relevant environment  TRL 7 Prototype demo in operational environment  TRL 8 Actual system completed and “flight qualified”  TRL 9 Actual system “flight proven” through successful mission operations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Readiness_Level 19

20. TypeDescriptionTRL Weight/Cost Savings Composites9 UAV/AI Pilot6 Propulsion Type Pulse Detonation3 Geared Turbofans6 Propulsion Enhancement Magnetic Bearings3 Thrust Vectoring7 High Lift Circulation Control7 Blown Flaps9 Co Flow Jet Control 4 20

21.  Fuselage sketches before configuration set  Aircraft evolution -> Fuselage change  Pressurized Cabin Shape  Cylindrical Cross-Section  Non-Cylindrical Cross-Section  Investigation of existing aircraft  Fuselage Dimensions  Galley/Lav/Cockpit Dimensions  Seat Dimensions  Generated CAD Model 21

22.  Length: 72.1 ft  Width: 14 ft  102 Seats, Single Class  Seat Pitch: 32 in  Aisle Width: 20 in  Seat Width: 24 in  2 Galley Areas: 35 and 16 ft 2  2 Lavs: ~20 ft 2 22

23.  Major Constraints  2500 ft TO/Landing Roll  5000 ft Balanced Field OEI  500 ft/min Climb Rate at 36000 ft Top of Climb  100 ft/min Climb Rate at 41000 ft Service Ceiling  2g Maneuver at 36000 ft  Second Segment Climb Gradient OEI ▪ 2.4%--2 Engine ▪ 2.7%--3 Engine ▪ 3.0%--4 Engine 23

24.  High and Hot Takeoff— 500o ft + 25°F  Aspect Ratio 10  Oswald Efficiency Factor 0.8  C D0 0.015  C LMax 4.0—Technology Improvement  L/D Second Segment Climb 11.5 24

25.  TO Field & 2 ND Segment Climb Size Aircraft  W/S—84 psf  T/W—0.23 25

26.  Design Mission  Altitude: 36,000 ft  Speed: 0.75 M  Cruise Range: 1,800 nmi  Steady, Level Flight  Analysis Tools:  RDS  Historical Database  CATIA 26

27.  Model Construction  Basic Model of Aircraft  Neglecting Landing Gear  Technology Weight Savings Not Included  Sizing Analysis  Initial “Guess” Values Used  Initial Values Derived from Aircraft Database 27

28.  Sizing Inputs:  W/S – 84 lbs/ft 2  T/W – 0.23  AR – 10  Wing Sweep – 10°  Sizing Output:  We/Wo – 0.60  Wo – 88,000 lb 28

29. -Fuel Burn suspect. Sizing code analysis to be investigated. -Weight neglects gear and tech savings. 29

30.  102 Passengers  1800 nmi Range  ESTOL Capable  Ability to operate at small airports, alleviating large airports  Advanced Technologies 30

31.  Sizing  Refine current models  Size Control Surfaces and Stabilizers  Comparison with Other Codes  Final Technology Selection  Aerodynamic Analysis  Performance and Stability Analysis  Cost Analysis 31