AAE 451 Senior Design – Critical Design Review

AAE 451 Senior Design – Critical Design Review
Aerial Surveying Plane (ASP) Scott Bird Mike Downes Kelby Haase Grant Hile Cyrus Sigari Sarah Umberger Jen Watson

Aerial Surveying Plane (ASP) Walk Around
Flaperons Tail Dragger Air Data Boom Tractor Engine Avionics Pod December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

ASP Critical Design Review
ASP Major Dimensions December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Preview Goals and Final Design Table Propulsion Aerodynamics Structures and Pod Stability and Control Cost Summary December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Design Challenge & Mission Specifications
“Design a remotely piloted aircraft capable of carrying a large avionics pod” – Mission Specification Possible applications Architectural Surveying Crop Surveying Mission Profile December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Final Design and Goals Table
ALL Design Goals Were Met! December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Constraint Diagram W/SHP = 14.5 lbf/SHP W/S = 1.8 lbf/ft2 December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Propulsion

Propulsion Engine Selection Propeller Selection Engine Performance December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Engine Specifications
OS Max 1.6 FX Cost: $270 Gravity fed fuel system Weight: 2 lb Uses glow plug RPM Range 1,800-10,000 3.7 HP at 9,000 RPM Side exhaust muffler with rotatable exhaust outlet Comes with illustrated instructions booklet with parts list and OS decal  December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Engine Selection 3.6 HP required (from constraint diagram) December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Propeller Specifications
Zinger 18x6 Pro-Zinger Wood Propeller Price = $18.99 Material: Wood December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Propeller Selection Propeller sized for takeoff conditions Takeoff Velocity = 39 ft/s Engine at Full Throttle Chose best combination of pitch and diameter (represented by circles) to meet the power required Propeller Choice: 18x6 December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Engine System Performance
Verify takeoff conditions are met Note: Static Thrust used for the first 1.1 seconds December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Takeoff Analysis Results
x = 95 ft Note: Static Thrust used for the first 1.1 seconds December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Aerodynamics

Aerodynamics and Flight Performance
Airfoil Sections and Geometry Aerodynamic mathematical model Flight Performance December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Airfoil Geometry Wing Section Horizontal and Vertical Tail Sections December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Wing Section Wing Airfoil NACA 2412 Aspect Ratio 7 Span (ft) Chord (ft) Planform Area (ft2) Taper Ratio 0 Dihedral (deg) Sweep Angle (deg) December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Horizontal Tail Geometry
Airfoil NACA 0012 Aspect Ratio 5 Span (ft) Chord (average) (ft) Planform Area (ft2) Taper Ratio Sweep Angle (deg) December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Vertical Tail Geometry
Airfoil NACA 0012 Aspect Ratio 2 Span (ft) Chord (average) (ft) Planform Area (ft2) Taper Ratio Sweep Angle (deg) December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Aircraft Aerodynamic Model & Flight Performance
CL, CD, CM Maximum Loiter Endurance Best Climb Angle Takeoff Angle of Attack Stall Speed December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Aerodynamic Model Coefficient of Lift [α & δe in rad-1] Drag Coefficient Pitching Moment Coefficient [α & δe in rad-1] December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Lift Coefficient December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Drag Polar December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Pitching Moment Coefficient
December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Aircraft Maximum Loiter Endurance
E = 28.7 minutes DR&O requirement E > 15 minutes 50 oz fuel tank Vmin power = 38.6 ft/s ηp = rpm) December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Aircraft Climb Angle γ = 16.4o DR&O requirement γ > 5.5o Flying at Velocity for minimum power require 38.6 ft/s Propeller Efficiency = 0.4 CL = 1.25 10o flap deflection December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Rotation Angle of Attack
From CL vs. α plot CL = 1.25 10o flap deflection December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Stall Speed Vstall = 30.3 ft/s DR&O requirement Vstall < 30 ft/s V min power = 38 ft/s Vtakeoff = 39 ft/s Provides good cushion for pilot December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Structures and Pod

Structural Attributes
Light weight Mostly Spruce, Balsa, and Aluminum Easy to build Simplistic Fuselage Transportable Detachable Wing Pod Easy to Attach and Reattach Space for Pod Redesign December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Light Weight: Careful Material Selection
Balsa Composite Spruce Rubber Aluminum December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Ease of Manufacture: Simple Design
Solid Material Longerons Aerodynamic Shaping Only 55 Major components! December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Transportable: Removable Wing
Engine Fuel Tank Wing Attachments Longest Dimension 14 ft December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Boom Attachment December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Variable Pod: Simplistic and Dynamic Support
Aluminum Tubes Spacers Expandable Aerodynamic Shaping Camera Window Protection From Crash Landing December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Landing Gear Characteristics
Tail Dragger Large prop clearance for improved rough surface operation Improved forward camera clearance due to lack of front landing gear Reduced drag and weight due to smaller landing gear in the rear December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Landing Gear Design Main Gear Modeled after a solid spring for vertical dissipation of impact energy Attached by shear bolts at non-crucial support member Dimensions: Aluminum 7075-T6 Beam thickness: ⅛ in Beam width: ½ in Total height (including 3” wheels): 0.7 ft Total weight: 2.59 lbs Tail Gear Wheel size: 2 inches December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Landing Gear Benefits Simplicity Propeller clearance: Tail down: 1.13 ft Tail up: ft Failure of the main gear structural member is designed to occur at 5Gs of force on one wheel strut ~260 lbs December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Stability and Control

Dynamics and Control Tail Sizing Control Surface Sizing Static Stability Dynamic Stability December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Control Surfaces Vertical Tail Svt = 4.2 ft2 Sr/Svt= 0.42 Horizontal Tail Sht = 8.2 ft2 Se/Sht = 0.46 December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Control Surfaces Flaperons Dual Function Reduce stall speed Provides control in roll axis Sa/Sw = 0.10 December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Center of Gravity (CG) Range
Refined CG envelope 2.66 to 2.86 ft CG location = 2.75 ft aft Static Margin = 16% Static Margin as a function of CG TOO STABLE CG RANGE MARGINALY STABLE December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Lateral-Directional Static Stability
Weathercock Stability Positive yawing moment, decreases sideslip disturbance Predator Code determined iterativelly Svt= 4.2 ft2 Typically 0.06 to 0.2 December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Lateral-Directional Static Stability
Dihedral Effect Designed to create rolling moment in the opposite direction of a dropped wing Due to increase in lift on the downward wing 0 degrees dihedral Clbeta = -0.15 Typically to -0.30 December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Longitudinal Dynamic Stability
Response after 10 degree Elevator step input Short period response Phugoid response December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Dynamics and Control Final Words
Aircraft is stable Dynamically Statically Flight control surface sized to promote adequate flight control Variable CG location while maintaining adequate SM December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Engineering 1150 Hours At $100/hr. Tooling (estimate) 605 Hours At $102/hr. Manufacturing (estimate) 364 Hours At $94/hr. Quality Control (estimate) 48 Hours At $85/hr. December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Flyaway Costs Development Support Costs $ 35,463 Manufacturing Materials Costs (Airframe, Propulsion,and Avionics) $ 1450 Payload Costs $ 12,322 December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Cost Breakdown December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

$ 264,622.57 Purchase price = RDT&E + flyaway cost Purchase Price
December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Summary

Aerial Surveying Plane (ASP) Walk Around
Flaperons Tail Dragger Air Data Boom Tractor Engine Avionics Pod December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Final Design and Goals Table
Simple design for ease of construction Detachable wing for ease of transportation Detachable pod for diverse mission capability Designed to take-off from conventional runways and unimproved ground December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Questions? Aerial Surveying Plane (ASP)

Propulsion Aerodynamics Structures Stability and Control Cost
Appendix Propulsion Aerodynamics Structures Stability and Control Cost

Propulsion Appendix

Putting EOMs into MATLAB
Put state space EOMs into MATLAB Used ode45 command to integrate EOMs Inputs to the code are initial conditions for position and velocity Used x(0) = 0ft and v(0) = 1ft/s to eliminate singularities Code output position and velocity as a function of time Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Output from EOM integration
W/S = 1.8 lbf/ft2 ρ = slug/ft3 CLmaxTO = 1.25 Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Cruise Analysis Results
Set Thrust = Drag Velocity = 50 ft/s RPM ~ 3580 Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Maximum Efficiency Analysis Results
Velocity = 50 ft/s Efficiency = 76% Advance Ratio (J) = /rev RPM ~4350 Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Cruise Conditions J = /rev Velocity = 50 ft/s RPM ~4350 CP = CT = Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Alternate Cruise Conditions
Vary velocity and RPM to find maximum efficiency Maximum efficiency occurs at J = /rev Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

EOM file in MATLAB Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Updated chord distribution in gold.m
inches 8.17 inches Divided picture of propeller into tenth of a Radius sections Red box is 9% of the Radius (default in gold.m) Yellow boxes were measured at each tenth of a Radius Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Updated chord distribution in gold.m
Chord length of each yellow box used to calculate c/R for each 1/10th of a Radius New chord distribution put into MATLAB code Modified gold.m ran to find new propeller Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Choosing a new propeller (again!)
Some of the larger diameters will not work at all! Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Choosing a new propeller (again!)
Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Aerodynamics Appendix

Flaps and Lift Clmax = 1.44 Used method outlined in Raymer for CLmax with flaps CLmax = CLmax + ΔCLmax ΔCLmax =0.9 * ΔClmax * (Sflap/Sref) ΔClmax was estimated using Table 12.2 (Raymer) Assumed that flap has small slot (from model expert), slotted flap approximate contribution ΔClmax = 1.3 CLmax = 1.8 (with flaps) Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Structures Appendix

Weight Item Weights (lbf) Prop 0.25 Engine 2.04 Firewall 0.08 Fuel Tank with Feul 2.44 Reciever 0.11 Battery 0.21 Wing 10.17 Pod 20.00 Data Boom 0.94 Servo S3001 0.10 S3104 Tail 3.20 Longerons 6.19 Gear Support 0.34 Joust 0.35 Pod Support 2.67 Front Landing gear 2.29 Rear Landing gear Aero Structs 0.32 Feul Tank support 0.31 Total weight 52.67 Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Close up Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

V-n diagram Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Tail Boom Cross Section Properties
Compare Cross-Sections to Minimize Weight Two Rectangles Box Beam Circular c h t x y d Back to Appendix Two Rectangles Box Beam Circular Wall thickness (in) Height(in) 4 3.5 Distance Between(in) 2.5 N/A Weight (lbf) .69 .67 1.33 December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Boom Sizing Tail boom sizing requirements: support the maximum loading conditions Maximum elevator and rudder deflections Small angle of twist Small deflection Assumptions and Chooses 5g (5 times gravity) is maximum lift loading Boom support is fixed to fuselage Spruce Lel Lrdr Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Maximum Loading Maximum Lift of Rudder and Elevator Maximum Velocity Maximum Coefficient of Lift Maximum deflection Maximum Bending Moment Longest Moment arm Max bending at fixed end Lift Back to Appendix x December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Tail Boom Property Requirements
My = maximum bending moment z=distance from centroid to farthest edge σxx = ultimate yielding stress (material property) Iy= Moment of Inertia of cross section Requirement: θ small degree at tip in Appendix Requirement: is small E=Young’s Modulus (material property) I=depends on cross section P L Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Stress Criteria Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Twist Criteria Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Tip Deflection Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Wing Box Design Sizing Criteria
Maximum Bending Stress Iy>=My*z/σxx θ<1 degree at tip Deflection at tip <=2in 1/4c Lift c Lift Back to Appendix a b December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Wing Box Properties Aluminum Balsa Spruce Pine Front Web thickness (in) .12 .125 2.124 2.125 .66.75 .708 .75 Rear Web thickness (in) .024.025 .025 .12 .125 Wing Weight (lbf) Front Spar Only 9.25 9.28 5.75 7.6 Front Spar- Tip Deflection Limiting Criteria Rear Spar- Tip Rotation Limiting Criteria Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Final Wing Box Properties
Material Spruce (lowest weight) Heights defined by airfoil Front Spar I-beam %20 chord Rear Spar Rectangle %60 chord .75in 2.88in 2.25in .125in 1.2in Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Performance of Wing Box
Θ=.072 deg Tip deflection= 1.77 inches Total Wing Weight= Front Spar + Rear Spar + 15 Ribs = lbs Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Pod Support My=q*L^2/12 My-maximum bending stress q=distributed load (1/2 pod weight) L=length Iy>=My*z/σxx q L Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Material Properties Property Aluminum Balsa Spruce Pine Max bending stress (lb/in^2) 47e3 2.2e3 5656 6.9e3 Shear Modulus (lb/in^2) 4e6 3.13e4 1.73e5 9.38e4 Young’s Modulus (lb/in^2) 10e6 .5e6 1.6e6 1.5e6 Density (lb/in^3) .0995 .0065 .0145 .0185 Back to Appendix ”Selection and use of Engineering Materials”, J.A. Charles December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Span-wise Loading Assumed Elliptical Loading Maximum at Root Max bending at root =245 lbf-ft Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Wing Box Properties (Rotation Requirements)
Requirement: θ<1 degree at tip T=Lift*(distance to shear center) L=Half span dis=distance between spars tf hf hr tr Back to Appendix b December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Wing Tip Deflection for Aluminum

Weight of Wing Structure (half span of front spar)
Weight=density*Cross sectional area*length Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Stability and Control Appendix

D & C PDR CONTROL DEFLECTIONS Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Class 1 Flight Control Surface Sizing-Raymer
Ailerons Typically span from 50% to 90% of the span Elevator Typically span from fuselage to 90% of span Rudder Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Flight Control Deflections
Rudder NACA0012 Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

D & C PDR TAIL SIZING Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Trim Analysis Equation 16.4 Revisited Prelim Xht = 5 ft Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Trim Range Trim analysis completed for feasible CG range and flight speed range Prelim Xcg = ft (Will Change in Slide 21) CG moving Aft CG moving Aft Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

D & C PDR STATIC STABILITY Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Static Stability Required Static Stability in All 3 Principal Axis Longitudinal Static Stability Must Determine Lateral-Directional Static Stability Weathercock Stability Dihedral Effect Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Longitudinal Static Stability
Positive Static Stability! Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Longitudinal Static Stability
BIG PICTURE How does each component add (or subtract) from the stability of the aircraft? Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Static Margin Finding Static Margin Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Static Margin How to choose? Xht = 5 ft Within Usable Region Find XCg TOO STABLE MARGINALY STABLE UNSTABLE Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Short period mode Short period mode of stability Poles: i Negative real part reveals stability Imaginary part reveals oscillatory nature Damping Ratio: Natural Frequency: 3.495 Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Phugoid mode Phugoid mode of stability Poles: i Postive real part reveals unstable pole Imaginary part reveals oscillatory nature Damping Ratio: Natural Frequency: Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

DutchRoll/Spiral mode
Dutchroll mode of stability Poles: i Damping Ratio: -1 Natural Frequency: 1.35 Spiral mode of stability Poles: Damping Ratio: 1 Natural Frequency: 6.54 Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Rudder Input Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Directional Stability

Elevator Input Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Longitudinal Stability

Flight Control Surfaces Sizing
Empirical Homebuilt Aircraft Flight Control Dimensions used (Pg. 191 “Aircraft Design Vol 2” Roskam) Horizontal Tail Area = 8.2 ft2 Elevator Se Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

Cost Appendix

Prices Chief Aircraft Inc website Aircraft Spruce website Wicks Aircraft Supply website Tower Hobbies website Back to Appendix December 9, 2003 ASP Critical Design Review

AAE 451 Senior Design – Critical Design Review

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "AAE 451 Senior Design – Critical Design Review"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

AAE 451 Senior Design – Critical Design Review

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "AAE 451 Senior Design – Critical Design Review"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback