1. Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Joe Lojek Justin Sommer James Koryan Ramy Ghaly November 7, 2006 Ducks on a Plane

2. Introduction Objectives Conceptual Design & Selection –Body Design –Wing Design –Fuselage Design –Tail Design –Landing Gear Areas of Technical Analysis Technical Analysis Budgeted Material Costs Phase II Progress Future Deliverables

3. Objectives Satisfy all required specifications presented by SAE Aerospace competition Begin construction of fuselage and landing gear prior to December 10 th. To successfully take off and land during SAE competition next April 2007 Achieve a greater appreciation and understanding of aerodynamics & flight theory

4. Conceptual Design Comparison Mono-plane Bi-plane Tri-plane Body Design

5. Selected Design: Pros/Cons Mono-Plan –Advantages Less Drag Ease of Construction Lightest Design Best Maneuverability –Disadvantages Less Stability Lower Levels of Lift Bi-Plane –Advantages Higher Lift Higher factor of Stability –Disadvantages Complexity of design/construction Heavier total Weight Tri-Plane –Advantages Highest factor of Stability Greatest total amount of lift Heaviest total weight –Disadvantages Greatest Drag Most complex to construct Poorest Maneuverability Conceptual Design Selection: Mono-plane: High Wing Body Design

6. Conceptual Design Comparison Eppler 423 –(C L =2.3) Selig 1210 –(C L =2.1) Aquila –(C L =1.148) Clark Y –(C L =1.2) Wing Design

7. Conceptual Design Comparison Wing Design

8. Conceptual Design Comparison Wing Design

9. Selected Design: Pros/Cons E423 –Advantages Highest Lift Ease to Construct Stable –Disadvantages High Drag High Pitch Moment S1210 –Advantages High Lift –Disadvantages Complex Construction Poor Structural Support Aquila –Advantages Most Stable Easily Constructed –Disadvantages Low Lift Coefficient Clark Y –Advantages Good Maneuverability Ease to Construct –Disadvantages Low Lift Conceptual Design Selection: E423 Wing Design

10. Conceptual Design Comparison Wing Shapes –Elliptical –Swept –Tapered Advantages –Decrease Losses –Increase Stability –Increase Maneuverability Wing Design

11. Technical Analysis Coefficient of lift Coefficient of Lift RequiredWing area (S): 880 in 2 Wing area: 800 in 2 Wing area: 750 in 2 Take - OffCruiseTake - OffCruiseTake - OffCruise Gross Weight lbs.at 20 mphat 50 mphat 20 mphat 50 mphat 20 mphat 50 mph Empty Weight91.440.231.580.251.690.27 Payload 5lbs142.240.362.460.392.630.42 Payload 10lbs193.040.493.340.543.570.57 Payload 15lbs243.840.614.220.684.50.72 Payload 20lbs294.640.745.10.815.440.87 Payload 25lbs345.440.875.980.956.381.02 C L = (gross weight * 3519) / (s * V 2 * S) s: (density of air) @ sea level : 1 S: wing area V: speed in mph

12. Technical Analysis High Lift Devices Flaps Plain Split Fowler Slotted Slats Fixed Retractable

13. Technical Analysis Lift Coefficient vs. Angle of Attack

14. Technical Analysis Pitching moment +/-, Nose up/Nose Down Assumption - The CG is vertically inline with the wings aerodynamic center. Pitching Moment = (C M * s * V 2 * S * C) / 3519 C M - Pitching moment coefficient S - (density of air) @ sea level : 1 S - wing area V - speed in mph Pitching moment lbs/inWing area: 880 in 2 Take - OffCruise Chord Length (C) in.at 20 mphat 50 mph 10-21.61-135.09 11-23.78-148.6 12-25.6-162.1

15. Technical Analysis Horizontal Tail TMA = (2.5 * MAC * 0.20 * WA) / HTA TMA – Tail moment arm, inches HTA – Horizontal tail area, in 2 WA – Wing area, in 2 MAC – Mean aerodynamic chord, in Tail Moment Arm in.Wing area: 880 in 2 Wing area: 800 in 2 Chord Length in.HTAat 180 in 2 HTAat 200 in 2 1036.6720 1140.3322 124424 Ex. With a pitching moment of -148.6 lb-in, and a TMA of 40.33 inches the download needed is 3.68 lbs

16. Wing Drag Calculation

17. Conceptual Design Comparison Fuselage Design C D =0.242 C D =0.198

18. Selected Design: Pros/Cons Fuselage A –Advantages Simpler Construction Larger Payload Area –Disadvantages Higher Drag Fuselage B –Advantages Lower Drag –Disadvantages Small Payload Area Construct more difficult Fuselage Design

19. Fuselage Drag Calculation Wing Design

20. Conceptual Design Comparison Tail Design Types –V-Tail –T-Tail Tail Design

21. Selected Design: Pros/Cons V-Tail –Advantages Low Drag Less Turbulent –Disadvantages Increased Stress on fuselage Complex control T-Tail –Advantages Ideal for Low Speed Flow over tail unaffected from wing flow –Disadvantages Prone to Deep Stall Tend to be heavier Conceptual Design Selection: T-Tail Tail Design

22. Horizontal Tail Drag Calculation Wing Design

23. Vertical Tail Drag Calculation Wing Design

24. Engine Blockage Drag Calculation For an engine blockage diameter of 6 in, the frontal area is A= (6/2) 2 =.159 ft 2. The drag coefficient for this frontal area is:

25. Landing Gear Drag Calculation For the landing gear drag, with wheels 4 inches in diameter, and.5 inches wide, the tricycle has a Cd of:

26. Takeoff Velocity Calculation Using EES, the takeoff Velocity (VTO) was calculated to be for a takeoff distance of 180 ft.

27. Cruising Velocity and Thrust Using EES, the cruising Velocity (V) was calculated to be

28. EES Calculation Summary

29. Budget: Material Costs ItemQty.Cost/UnitCost Servos4$25.00$100.00 Balsa Wood $25.00 Wheels 3"4$5.00$20.00 6V 3700mAh NiMH Battery Module1$18.95 Servo Extension wires4$9.00$36.00 Sandpaper Grit assortment1$15.00 Epoxy1$3.50 Wood Glue1$3.50 Servo Arm Standard Assortment2$3.95$7.90 X-Acto Basic Knife Set1$24.00 Propeller 11x6-13x66$13.95 Plywood 8x4x1/81$15.00 Carbon fiber tubing2$15.70$31.40 Spinner1$10.00 Motor Mount1$17.00 Total30$204.55$341.20

30. Phase II Progress

31. Future Deliverables Complete Design of Cargo Plane –Engine mounting design –Wing flap design –Servo placement –Landing Gear Status on Fuselage & Landing gear construction Completed CAD Rendering Calculated download needed for horizontal tail plane

32. Conclusion Calculations verified 35 lb. total load Wing design feasible Fuselage capable to containing specified payload Concluded plan form area exceeds 1000 sq. in specification Determined multiple necessary outputs using EES (eg: V, T, Distance, etc.)

33. Questions

34. Title: SAE Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Team Members: Justin Sommer, James Koryan, Joseph Lojek, Ramy N. Ghaly Advisor: Prof. S. Thangam Project Group Number: 5 Objectives: Designing and modeling a heavy lift cargo airplane to compete in SAE Aero Design East 2007 in Atlanta, Georgia. Minimizing empty weight while maximizing the payload. Takeoff, 360 degrees turn, and landing safely. Results obtained at this point: Advantages and disadvantages of different conceptual designs. Airfoil: Eppler 423 Takeoff distance, time, velocity calculations. Cursing velocity, drag, and thrust calculations. Drag, thrust, rolling forces calculations. Circular fuselage, straight rectangular wings, and tricycle landing gear design configurations. Types and Focuses of Technical Analysis Using light materials with high strength: Balsa wood, composites. WinFoil simulation, FoilSim, and SolidWorks Focusing selecting the airfoil, reducing drag, construction methods. Drawing and Illustration Design Specifications: Engine: stroke motor: 0.61 cubic inches 1.9 hp. Max. Planform Area: 1000 in 2 Weight: 35 lb [(empty)8 lb + (payload) 27 lb] Cargo utility: rectangular (4x4x16) in 2 Wing span: 80.4 in Fuselage length: 54 in ME 423 Design Progress Nugget Chart