Team 1 CoDR Presentation 04/22/10

Team 1 CoDR Presentation 04/22/10
Alex Mondal Jason Liu Lauren Hansen Beth Grilliot Jeff Cohen Nick Walls Brien Piersol Jeremy Wightman Ryan Foley Heath Cheung Kit Fransen Tim Fechner September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Outline Performance Review Mission Structures Best Aircraft Concept
Weights and Balance Stability Noise Cost Results Summary Review Mission Best Aircraft Concept Sizing Trade-offs Aircraft Description Aerodynamics Propulsion September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Design Mission Typical Operating Mission Major Design Requirements
Mission Statement Design Mission Typical Operating Mission Major Design Requirements September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

CORNERS OF THE TRADE SPACE
Mission Statement To engineer a conceptual business aircraft solution capable of transporting esteemed passengers, in luxury, while adhering to NASA’s N+2 environmental goals. Environmentally Friendly Reduction of Noise Reduction of Emissions Increase in Recyclable Build Materials Increase in Fuel Efficiency NASA N+2 CORNERS OF THE TRADE SPACE N+2=2020 Technology Benefits Relative To A Large Twin Aisle Reference Configuration Noise (cum below Stage 4) -42 dB LTO NOx Emissions (below CAEP 6) -75% Performance: Aircraft Fuel Burn -50% Performance: Field Length The elite class of the business and private jet aircraft are the super mid-size jets that feature wide body cabin space, high altitude, speed, and ultra long range capabilities. The new Rolls-Royce BR725 will power Gulfstream’s G650 and is described by the company as “the most advanced member of the BR700 engine series.” It is expected to emit 21 percent less NOx, show a 4-percent specific fuel consumption improvement, and be four decibels quieter than the BR710. Rolls-Royce attributes the improvements in part to a 50-inch diameter fan assembly made up of 24 “swept” titanium blades. Noise = Engine choice and positioning Emissions = Emit less NOx due to choice of engines Recyclable = choice of build materials Fuel Efficiency = Engine and flight speed Courtesy of : era_preconference_synopsis.htm September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Major Design Requirements
Design Mission 12-16 Passengers, Plus Crew (4) Cruise Speed at 0.85 Mach Range of 7,100 Nautical Miles (Still Air Range) Cruise Altitude above 42,000 Feet Take Off Ground Roll: 4, ,200 Feet Landing Distance: 2, ,000 Feet Major Design Requirements Range Cabin Height Empty Weight Cabin Volume Cruise Speed Take-off Distance September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Design Mission Cruise to Alternate Cruise 2nd Climb Climb Loiter
Take off Missed Approach Land Taxi Land Range: 7,100 nmi Capacity: lbf/person Typical Operating Mission: 10 passengers Cruise Mach: 0.85 September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Selected Best Aircraft Concept
Selected Best Aircraft Concept Walk Around Chart Important Design Features Major Design Parameters September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Conventional Canard Design
September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Blended Wing Body September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Major Design Parameters
CCD BWB Wing Loading 100 lb/ft2 70 lb/ft2 Wing Planform Area 729 ft2 1000 ft2 Wing Span 76 ft 55 ft Wing Aspect Ratio 8.0 3.0 Wing Sweep 40° 35° Thrust to Weight Ratio (sea-level) 0.34 0.33 September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Results of Aircraft Sizing
Results of Aircraft Sizing Description of Sizing Code Modeling Approaches and Assumptions Sizing Code Validation September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Sizing Algorithm Developed and implemented MATLAB scripts
Predicted fuel burn per mission segment and developed engine model Empty weight found through component build up Drag calculated from simplified aerodynamic model Estimated cost The empty weight equation is for general aviation aircraft, but a correction factor was determined by using the equation for our business aircraft database and September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Engine Modeling Baseline data from supplied data sheet
Values scaled according to the aircraft size Data assumed to be uninstalled thrust and for an average direct drive turbofan September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Modeling Assumptions Weight – Raymer Transport Equations
Fixed design parameters: CLmax = 1.18 (t/c)w = 0.12  = 40°  = 0.25 September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

CCD Technology Factors
12% reduction in SFC 30% increase in cost for Composite materials 15 dB below Stage 4 for geared Turbofan Increased laminar flow due to active flow control Laminar flow percentage used betaw = 0.4 betac = 0.4 3% increase to SFC due to installation losses Conservative prediction with noise (P&W 20dB) September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Validation with G650 Used reported geometric values
Ran code and compared G650 Our Code Error Empty Weight 54,000 lb 52,000 lb 3.7% Fuel Weight 44,200 lb 45,000 lb 1.2% Total Weight 99,600 lb 100,000 lb 0.4% Market Cost $58.5 million $62.7 million 7.2% September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Summary of Carpet Plot Studies Other Trade-offs Considered
Trade-offs Summary of Carpet Plot Studies Final Carpet Plot Other Trade-offs Considered September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Final Carpet Plot Optimal Values: T/W = 0.34 W/S = 100.5 lb/ft^2
Climb Gradient >= 2.4% Take-off Ground Roll < 4800 ft Optimal Values: T/W = 0.34 W/S = lb/ft^2 September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Other Trade-offs Airfoil Selection Engine Options
Geared Turbofan v. Direct Drive Propfan v. Geared Turbofan September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Dimensioned Three-View Internal Layouts
Aircraft Description Dimensioned Three-View Internal Layouts September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

CAD Model September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Wing and Tube Configurations
16 passengers 12 passengers September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Airfoil Selection for Wing and Canard
Aerodynamics Drag Buildup Canard Placement Airfoil Selection for Wing and Canard High-Lift Devices September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Drag Buildup Parasite Drag Wave Drag Drag due to lift
Uses wetted area and assumes is polished sheet metal Wave Drag Uses Locke’s fourth power law for approximation Drag due to lift Based on lift and Oswald’s efficiency factor September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Canard Placement Induced drag decreases as distance between the canard and main wing increases Placed 15 ft from nose due to other constraints September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Airfoil Selection Used Supercritical Airfoils
Delays onset of wave drag at transonic ranges Ran sizing code for variety of super critical airfoils Increase in thickness correlated to increase in weight Selected a balanced airfoil with a higher CL0 Wing: NASA SC(2) 0612 Canard: NASA SC(2) 0610 September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

High Lift Devices Ran sizing code at a take-off velocity and varied incidence angle Determined take-off is possible To account for stall possibilities, a minimum of flaps are to be added to the design September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Engine Choice Thrust Trade-Offs
Propulsion Engine Choice Thrust Trade-Offs September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Proposed Engine Choice
Pratt & Whitney PurePower Geared Turbofan entering service in 2013 -12-15% fuel burn decrease -15 dB v. Stage 4 -50% NOx to CAEP 6 COMMITTEE ON AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (CAEP) September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Thrust Available vs. Thrust Required
Thrust available was determined by engine model for 100% throttle at given altitude and Mach number Thrust required was determined to be the drag produced by aircraft Takeoff and approach conditions were evaluated at SL Flight Condition Thrust Required [lbs] Thrust Available [lbs] 250 knot takeoff 3,300 19,200 250 knot approach 2,400 September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Thrust Available v. Thrust Required at Cruise
Engine data at 42,000 ft only valid between Mach 0.6 and 0.9. Best jet range: M = 0.85 September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Reduction in SFC 1 – No change in SFC
0.5 – Meeting NASA’s N+2 goal of -50% reduction in fuel burn A 5% change in SFC results in about a 5.3% change in TOGW September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

UDF Adjustment for propfan:
SFC decrease to 20% from 12% Pylon size increased to 6 ft 14% decrease in TOGW, added insulation weight not taken into account W0 [lbs] Wf [lbs] With Geared Turbofan 80,500 36,100 With Propfan 74,800 32,200 September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Engine Diameter Study PurePower fan diameter is listed as ≈ 4.45 ft
RR BR710 listed as 4 ft A 7% change in engine diameter results in about a 1.2 % change in gross takeoff weight The SFC gain from the GTF outweighs the added drag penalty from the larger nacelle and pylons September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

V-n (Loads) Diagram Performance Summary
Performance V-n (Loads) Diagram Performance Summary September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

V-n (Loads) Diagram n = +2 n = -1.4 September 17, 2018
AAE 451 Spring 2010

Performance Summary Values Best Range Velocity 823 ft/sec
Best Endurance Velocity 581 ft/sec Stall Speed 241 ft/sec Maximum Speed during Climb MDD Maximum Speed during Cruise M = 0.9 Takeoff Distance (ground roll) 3,600 ft Landing Distance (ground roll) 600 ft September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Configuration Layout Material Selection/Justification
Structures Configuration Layout Material Selection/Justification September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Conceptual Structural Design

Fuselage Typical wing and tube design
Integral stringers for longitudinal stiffness Circumferential stiffeners for pressure vessel September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Canard Box Low canard Spars under floor Simple wing box
Easy construction Does not interfere with cabin September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Wing Box Mid-wing through fuselage Wing box behind pressure vessel
Relatively light weight construction September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Tail and Engine Pylons Tail LE attached to rear wing spar
LE pylon spar attached to LE tail spar TE tail and pylon spars connected to stiffener September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Landing Gear Height = 4.05 ft with backend clearance of 3 ft
Currently at 80 ft from nose Front gear attached to canard box Rear gear attached to wing box September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Material Choices Similar to Boeing 787
Main structure composite materials September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Composites Pros: Good strength to weight Aeroelastic tailoring
Strong corrosion resistance Lower part count Fatigue benefits Cons: Manufacturing Cost Repair Inspection Mass production Not environmentally friendly September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Weights and Balance Aircraft Group Weights Statement
Weights and Balance Aircraft Group Weights Statement Description of Empty Weight Prediction Location of Center of Gravity September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Empty Weight Prediction Method
Equations for a/c components from Raymer Each component function of designed gross weight Gross weight passed to function during mission segment loop Summation of component weights Currently light and leads to incorrect convergence of gross weight Only source was raymer Canard weight assumed to be horizontal tail September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

CG and Neutral Point Center of Gravity:
Components included in CG calculation Fuselage, wing, canard, vertical tail, nacelles, engines, and landing gears Other weights put in center of vehicle Crew, passengers, payload, furnishings, etc. Neutral Point: 73.3 ft from nose September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

CG and Longitudinal Stability
Nose to LEwing = 70 ft CG from LEWing [ft] Weight [lb] Static Margin EW 2.1 40,800 11% OEW 1.6 41,700 16% OEWf 77,300 MTOW 1.8 80,000 14% MTOWmf 0.7 44,000 24% MTOWmfmpax 1.4 41,300 18% September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Center of Gravity Travel
MTOW OEW w/ Fuel MTOW w/o fuel & pax OEW EW MTOW w/o fuel September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Static Longitudinal Stability Lateral Stability
Stability and Control Static Longitudinal Stability Lateral Stability September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Canards Lifting surface Horizontal stabilizer
Canard-based designs offer several advantages over traditional aft-tail designs. First, the canard provides positive lift to counteract the moment generated by the wings. This gives canard aircraft higher lift force than an equivalent tail design. Because of the additional lift, canard designs have reduced takeoff and landing distance, can fly at slower speeds, and are capable of greater range. Second, the canard provides natural stall control. The canard will stall first, so if the aircraft begins to angle too high, the canard loses lift and the aircraft returns to a normal angle of attack. Third, the placement of the canard means that the wing can be placed further back on the aircraft. This allows for a structurally-beneficial mid-wing design while still keeping a large cabin area. September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Canard Sizing Strategy
Canard Size Sized for Takeoff Rollout and Landing Flare Planform Area = 340 ft2 September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Tail Sizing Strategy One Engine Out Cross-Wind Landing
Final Vertical Tail Planform Area = 185 ft2 September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Noise Reducing External Noise Approach to Characterize External Noise
Noise Reducing External Noise Approach to Characterize External Noise Estimates on Certification Noise Values September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Aircraft Noise Features of the aircraft intended to reduce community/external noise Geared Turbofan engine Other Methods: Thrust cut back after take off Two-segment approach, incorporating a steeper decent path than the usual approach After takeoff, the flight path is prescribed over regions least likely to suffer from noise impact, i.e. away from towns and over sparsely populated areas September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Method of Calculation Geared Turbofan is projected at 15 dB below the Stage 4 noise limit Corrections for sound propagation, engine effect, and airframe effect Sound propagation is due to altitude at flyover and distance from the sideline September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Current Design (15 dB below)
Noise Levels NASA N+2 : 230 dB Current Design: dB Takeoff [dB] Sideline [dB] Approach [dB] Total [dB] Current Design (15 dB below) 75.4 77.9 83.5 236.8 Stage 4 86 91 95 272 Engines at Stage 4 80.4 82.9 88.5 251.8 September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Cost Estimated Cost to Develop, Manufacture, and Certify
Cost Estimated Cost to Develop, Manufacture, and Certify Number of Aircraft in Production Run Estimated Operating Cost Methods Used to Compute Cost September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Basic Cost Assumptions
Used RAND DAPCA IV Model Development and procurement costs Includes engineering hours and basic assumptions on hourly wrap rates for labor costs Technology Factor: 30% Accounts for Increase In Manufacturing/Development Cost and Reduction of Operating Cost Most important: empty weight, speed and quantity Integrated Cost Analysis into Sizing Code Dynamic Variables (We, V, W0, etc.) September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Basic Cost Assumptions
Production Quantity Validation using G550 and market analysis Use of 4 flight-test aircraft Assumed 1,250 block hours for our business jet Three-man crew cost is per block hour Assumed fuel cost of $0.6/lb of jet fuel Insurance Rate - CCD: 1.5% Depreciation is straight line method (ALS) using a useful life September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Operating Costs Fixed Costs: Insurance, Crew, Hanger, and Training
Could also include depreciation Hanger costs and training costs assumed for a Gulfstream V by Plane Quest* Variable Costs: Carbon Tax, Fuel, Maintenance Carbon tax and fuel costs based on fuel burned Tax based on future values from EU and possibly USA (0.17%) * September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Cost of Market Value (10% Investment Rate)
Validation of Cost Introduced in 2004 Average Market Value is $59.9 Million/Aircraft In January 2009, 190 G550’s in Service Operating Cost From Corporate Jet Sales Cost Breakdown Actual Calculated Cost of Market Value (10% Investment Rate) $59.9 Million/Aircraft $59.6 Million/Aircraft Total Operating Cost $4,200/hour $4,300/hour September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Costs for CCD Aircraft/Design Process
Production Quantity: 200 in 5 years Years to Break Even (10% Investment Rate): 3.5 Years Cost Breakdown Value RDT&E $8.3 Billion Cost of Production $56.8 Million/aircraft Cost of Market Value (10% Investment Rate) $62.5 Million/aircraft Total Operating Cost $4,100/block hour Variable Cost $2,900/block hour Fixed Cost $1,200/block hour Yearly Depreciation Value $4.3 Million September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Results September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Results Parameter Value Empty Weight Fraction 0.51
Fuel Weight Fraction 0.45 Empty Weight 41,100 lb Fuel Weight 36,300 lb Gross Weight 80,500 lb Static Margin 14% Market Cost $62.5 Million September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

NASA N+2 Goals checklist
CORNERS OF THE TRADE SPACE N+2=2020*** Technology Benefits Relative To A Large Twin Aisle Reference Configuration Achieved N+2 Goals Noise (cum below Stage 4) -42 dB LTO NOx Emissions (below CAEP 6) -75% Performance: Aircraft Fuel Burn -50%** Performance: Field Length -50% *** Technology Readiness Level for key technologies = 4-6 ** RECENTLY UPDATED. Additional gains made be possible through operational improvements. * Concepts that enable optimal use of runways at multiple airports within the metropolitan area Courtesy of September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

CORNERS OF THE TRADE SPACE N+2=2020*** Technology Benefits Relative To A Large Twin Aisle Reference Configuration Achieved N+2 Goals Noise (cum below Stage 4) -42 dB No: dB LTO NOx Emissions (below CAEP 6) -75% Performance: Aircraft Fuel Burn -50%** Performance: Field Length -50% *** Technology Readiness Level for key technologies = 4-6 ** RECENTLY UPDATED. Additional gains made be possible through operational improvements. * Concepts that enable optimal use of runways at multiple airports within the metropolitan area Courtesy of September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

CORNERS OF THE TRADE SPACE N+2=2020*** Technology Benefits Relative To A Large Twin Aisle Reference Configuration Achieved N+2 Goals Noise (cum below Stage 4) -42 dB No: dB LTO NOx Emissions (below CAEP 6) -75% No: -50% Performance: Aircraft Fuel Burn -50%** Performance: Field Length -50% *** Technology Readiness Level for key technologies = 4-6 ** RECENTLY UPDATED. Additional gains made be possible through operational improvements. * Concepts that enable optimal use of runways at multiple airports within the metropolitan area Courtesy of September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

CORNERS OF THE TRADE SPACE N+2=2020*** Technology Benefits Relative To A Large Twin Aisle Reference Configuration Achieved N+2 Goals Noise (cum below Stage 4) -42 dB No: dB LTO NOx Emissions (below CAEP 6) -75% No: -50% Performance: Aircraft Fuel Burn -50%** No: -12% Performance: Field Length -50% *** Technology Readiness Level for key technologies = 4-6 ** RECENTLY UPDATED. Additional gains made be possible through operational improvements. * Concepts that enable optimal use of runways at multiple airports within the metropolitan area Courtesy of September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

CORNERS OF THE TRADE SPACE N+2=2020*** Technology Benefits Relative To A Large Twin Aisle Reference Configuration Achieved N+2 Goals Noise (cum below Stage 4) -42 dB No: dB LTO NOx Emissions (below CAEP 6) -75% No: -50% Performance: Aircraft Fuel Burn -50%** No: -12% Performance: Field Length -50% Yes *** Technology Readiness Level for key technologies = 4-6 ** RECENTLY UPDATED. Additional gains made be possible through operational improvements. * Concepts that enable optimal use of runways at multiple airports within the metropolitan area Courtesy of September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Summary and Next Steps September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Conventional Canard Design
Did not meet NASA N+2 goals Still demonstrated substantial improvements Working aircraft Stable Destination flexibility Improved SFC Comparable payload Longer range for weight class September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Updated Compliance Matrix
CCD Threshold Target Target Achieved Range (Still-air) [nmi] 7,100 4,500 Ground Roll Take off Distance <# [ft] 3,600 4,000 Empty Weight [lb] 41,100 55,000 45,000 Fuel Weight [lb] 36,300 25,000 Cabin Volume [ft^3] 2,000 2,200 Cruise Speed [Mach] 0.85 0.84 Cumulative Certification Noise Level[dB] 236 250 230 Cabin Height [in] 72 77 September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Next Steps Develop an engine deck Better drag model
Proper empty weight build up Continued testing and validation September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Team 1 CoDR Presentation 04/22/10
Alex Mondal Jason Liu Lauren Hansen Beth Grilliot Jeff Cohen Nick Walls Brien Piersol Jeremy Wightman Ryan Foley Heath Cheung Kit Fransen Tim Fechner September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Main Slides Propulsion Review Mission Structures Best Aircraft Concept
Sizing Major Design Trade-offs Aircraft Description Aerodynamics Performance Propulsion Structures Weights and Balance Stability and Control Noise Cost Results Summary September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Back-Up Slides Weight Definitions Weight Components
Weight Component Results Blended Wing Body Pros/Cons BWB Modeling Assumption Drag Code Flow Chart Parasite Drag Parasite Drag - Skin Friction Form Factor Interference Drag Wave Drag V-n Diagram Assumptions V-n Diagram Values Take-off/Landing Equations Climb Gradient Geared Turbofan Fuselage Diameter Climb Trajectory Mach Max Rate of Climb CAD Interior CAD Exterior Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Backup – Weight Definitions
Empty weight – All components built in Operating EW – EW w/ pilots and trapped fuel OEW w/ Fuel – All components with pilots and max fuel Max T/O Weight – EW with all passengers, crew and fuel MTOW minus fuel – MTOW without any fuel MTOW minus fuel & passengers – (fuel, passengers, crew) Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Backup – Components Structure: Wing, Canard, V. Tail, Fuselage, Main & Nose Landing Gear, Nacelle and Engine Controls: Engine controls, starter, Avionics, and handling gear Other: APU, Electrical, Air Conditioning, flight Controls, Hydraulics, Furnishings Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Backup – Component Weight
Weight [lbs] EW Percentage Wing 8833 21.6% Canard 2604 6.4% Vertical Tail 240 0.6% Fuselage 6025 14.8% Main Gear 530 1.3% Nose Gear 99 0.2% Nacelles 3775 9.2% Engine Controls 58 0.1% Ignition System 120 0.3% Fuel System 541 Engines 5236 12.8% Component Weight [lbs] EW Percentage Flight Control 1891 4.6% APU 880 2.2% Instruments 248 0.6% Hydraulics 132 0.3% Electronics 1225 3.0% Avionics 1538 3.8% Furnishings 5900 14.4% Air Conditioning 782 1.9% Anti-Icing 161 0.4% Handling and Loads 24 0.1% Component Weight [lbs] Fuel 36014 Crew 900 Payload 2250 We 40842 W0 80006 Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Backup - Blended Wing Body
Pros 10-20 dB noise reduction 15% OEW reduction 15% thrust reduction 25% less fuel burn 15% L/D increase Cons Higher floor angle on takeoff and landing Composite materials required for centerbody Fewer windows Complexity of aerodynamic design The blended-wing-body aircraft shows an incredible amount of promise. Research by NASA Langley and Boeing has shown that merely changing the configuration of the aircraft – barring any other technological improvements – results in substantial benefits for weight reduction and fuel burn. In 2002, Boeing compared their blended-wing-body aircraft design to the Airbus A For the same range, payload, and number of passengers, the blended-wing design shows substantial improvements over the conventional design. This comes in large part from the reduction in drag for the BWB design. Since there is no “tube” fuselage, parasite drag at wing and fuselage connections is eliminated. By placing the engines on pylons above the body, interference drag is reduced. The BWB design shows weight savings due to the elongated centerbody. The weight of the cabin is spread over the wings, resulting in less bending moment on the internal structure. Finally, the external noise level is reduced due to the large body of the aircraft. Aft of the plane, tests have shown a reduction of 10 decibels in engine noise, and 20 decibels in front of it. Additional noise reductions are expected due to the lack of trailing edge slotted-flap surfaces and fuselage-wing interactions. Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Backup - Modeling Assumptions BWB
Centerbody weight modeled from NASA technical document “A Sizing Methodology for the Conceptual Design of Blended-Wing-Body Transports” Other aircraft weights determined from Daniel Raymer’s “Aircraft Design: a Conceptual Approach” Divided BWB main body into centerbody and outboard wing sections Centerbody weight is a function of cabin surface area and TOGW Treated as second, thick wing for aerodynamic analysis Outboard Wing Weight based on planform area Treated as normal wing for aerodynamic analysis Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Backup - Drag Code Overview
Inputs from Sizing Code: Flight Conditions Atmospheric Conditions Aircraft Geometry Total_Drag.m Passes inputs to parasitedrag.m Computes drag due to lift using: Computes estimated Drag divergence Mach number, MDD If M > MDD -.1, Computes wave drag coefficient according to Locke’s Fourth Power Law Sums coefficients to determine total CD Computes total drag D using: Returns Drag force in lbf to main sizing code Parasitedrag.m Computes estimated parasite and form drag Uses the component build up method described in the Raymer textbook Returns the parasite drag coefficient, CD0 Drag [lbf ] Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Backup - Parasite Drag Formulation
Subsonic drag buildup Sref = reference area (wing planform) Cf = skin friction coefficient K = form factor Q = interference factor Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Backup - Parasite Drag Formulation
Skin Friction Drag Percentage of laminar flow over surface defined for each component Laminar section: from Raymer Turbulent section: Schlicting Formula for turbulent flow Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Backup - Form Factor Account for pressure drag effects, shape dependent Wing, tail, pylon, centerbody Fuselage Nacelle Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Backup - Interference Factor
Based on interaction of flow with joints in wing, fuselage, and nacelles For nacelles more than DN away from wing or fuselage, QN = 1.0 For mid wing or low wing with fillets, QN = 1.0 Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Backup - Wave Drag Drag Divergence Mach number from Shevell:
Lock’s fourth power law for subsonic aircraft: Where Mcr = MDD – 0.1 Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

V-N diagram assumptions
Md = Mc + 0.2 Gust varies with Mach and altitude Instant gust and affects entire a/c instantly Cosine gusts No account for loads on lifting surfaces or loads due to control deflection Interpolate between FAR gust intensity values for 42,000 ft Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

V-n (Loads) diagram Values
Vd = knots eq n = -1.4 Ude a = ft/s W/S = 80 lb/ft^2 Ude c = ft/s c_bar = Ude d = ft/s Clalpha = /rad ∆n_a = 0.335 Va = knots eq ∆n_c = 1.327 Vb = knots eq ∆n_d = 0.744 Vc = knots eq Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Combined V-n diagram if n = 2.5
Red: n = Blue: n = +2.5 September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010 Back-Up Main

Combined V-n diagram if W/S = 70
Reach maximum load factor at a lower velocity Lower W/S = blue September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010 Back-Up Main

Combined V-n diagram if W/S = 90
Higher W/S = blue September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010 Back-Up Main

V-N diagram future More detail in gust analysis
Include gusts in atmosphere function instead of adding in separately Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010 Back-Up Main

Backup slide - Geared Turbofan
Gearing allows main fan to rotate slower, thus reducing exit velocity, but also thrust Gearing also allows low spool compressor to spin faster, increasing efficiency Increased bypass ratio increases mass flow, thereby increasing thrust Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Backup Slide – Fuselage Diameter
Fuselage diameter = 8.5 ft W0 = 78,900 lbs Fuselage diameter = 9 ft W0 = 80,500 lbs Fuselage diameter = 9.5 ft W0 = 81,000 lbs Fuselage diameter = 10 ft W0 = 82,000 lbs Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Backup - Climb Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Backup - Mach Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Backup – Best Rate of Climb
Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Backup - CAD Dimensions - Interior
Chair 28” x 28” seat 28” back height 21” off the ground Table 32” x 28” top 32” off the ground Storage 42” x 36” x 48” Restroom 60” x 36” total area Surrounded by walls Galley 72” x 18” base 72” x 20” top Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Backup - CAD Dimensions - Exterior
Wing 15.53 ft Root Chord 3.8 ft Tip Chord Canard 5.2 ft Root Chord 1.3 ft Tip Chord Fuselage 62 ft Length 9 ft Diameter Nacelle 5 ft Diameter 11 ft Length Pylon 6 ft Length 9 ft Wide Vertical Tail Nose 20 ft Length Tail 22.5 ft Length Back-Up Main September 17, 2018 AAE 451 Spring 2010

Team 1 CoDR Presentation 04/22/10

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Team 1 CoDR Presentation 04/22/10"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Team 1 CoDR Presentation 04/22/10

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Team 1 CoDR Presentation 04/22/10"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback