1. Conceptual Design Review
EMPLOYED
AAE 451: Team Employable
Brian Hartel
Tim Luckey
Laura Managan
Alan Pomp
Ashley Prather
Aamod Samuel
Nick Stallings
Katie Vollmayer
Michael Yankel

2. Outline Mission Statement Aircraft Design Mission and Requirements
Carpet Plots and Aircraft Sizing
Design Trade-offs
Final Aircraft Description
Performance
Propulsion
Structures
Weight and Balance
Stability and Control
Noise
Cost
Summary
12/3/2018

3. Mission Statement
Due to rising fuel costs and growing environmental concerns, we aim to design a commercial transport aircraft that utilizes advanced concepts and technologies while meeting the requirements outlined by the NASA Environmentally Responsible Aircraft College Student Challenge.
12/3/2018

4. ERA Goals (N+2) Reduce NOx emissions Reduce aircraft noise
75% below CAEP 6
Reduce aircraft noise
42dB below Stage 4
*Reduce fuel burn by 50%
*Reduce field length by 50%
*relative to reference aircraft (Boeing )
12/3/2018

5. Target Market Single Aisle Asia-Pacific North America 224 passengers
3,200 nmi
Asia-Pacific
Predicted to have the largest market demand by 2029
North America
Southwest Airlines
12/3/2018

6. Design Mission Profile
Step Cruise 3 2
Divert Cruise
(200 nm)
Initial Climb
Descent
(no range credit) 6 7
Divert
Climb
Loiter (30 min) 1 8 4 5
Land/taxi
Land/taxi
Taxi/Takeoff
Missed
Approach
Design Range (3,200 nm)
Reserve Segments (5-8)
12/3/2018

7. Configuration Walk-Around
Spiroid Winglets
V-Tail
Merged Fuselage/Wing
Over-wing Engine
Geared Turbofan
12/3/2018

8. Technologies Walk-Around
Structural Health Monitoring
60% composite
aircraft
Nozzle Chevrons
HLFC
Electro-hydrostatic Actuators
Blow-over
HLFC
Electric Taxi
12/3/2018

9. Major Design Parameters
W/S [lb/ft2]
T/W AR
Wing Sweep [deg]
Landing Braking Ground Roll [ft]
Takeoff Ground Roll [ft]
CLmax Landing
CLmax Takeoff
115
0.34
9.45 25
1000
3000
4.5
2.5
12/3/2018

10. Basic Sizing Model Category Method/Source(s) Calibration Factors
%Error from baseline B737
Empty Weight
Raymer Transport Equations (Ch 15)
<
1.15
3.0%
Fuel Weight
Breguet Range Equation (Cruise)
Historical Fractions Provided in Course -
4.3%
Payload/Crew Weight
Assumption: Average person Weighs 150 lbs+ 50 lbs baggage + 20 lbs carry-on
Engine Weight
Raymer (Ch 10) - Equation 10.4 3%
Engine SFC
Raymer (Ch 10) - Equation 10.9
<1%
Tail Size
Sized for rotation
Raymer
4% h-tail
6% v-tail
Parasite Drag
Buildup Raymer Eq
Total Drag during Cruise error : 4%
Induced Drag
Course Notes
+ Trim Drag
Wave Drag
Course Materials:
Locke’s Fourth Power Law
12/3/2018

11. Basic Model Validation
(lbs)
Baseline Aircraft
Prediction
Error (%)
Boeing
Fuel Weight
46,100
44,000
-4.3%
OWE
93,600
96,000
+3.0%
TOGW
164,000
+0.3%
Airbus A
53,100
59,900
+13.1%
105,300
98,000
-6.1%
206,000
212,000
+2.9%
12/3/2018

12. Advanced Technologies Model
Technology
Source(s)
Benefits
Penalties
60% Composite Material
12% Reduction in Empty Weight
Complexity / Cost
Spiroid Winglets
Aviation Partners, Inc. <
10% reduction in Induced Drag
800 lbs Additional Empty Weight
Geared Turbofan Engine
Lee, P., “Pratt & Whitney’s Geared Turbofan Engine - The Economic and Environmental Solution” 17th Annual National Aviation Environmental Conference, slide 7, June 2008.
NASA tabular data provided in course materials
20% Reduction in SFC
Complexity
Wing Blow Over
Kohlman, D.L., Introduction to V/STOL Airplanes,1st ed., The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1981.
25% Increase in CLmax
Proportional Induced Drag Increase
Electric Taxiing
<
65% fuel burn reduction during taxi
200 lb motor
Electric Actuators
Stricker, P., "Technology Zone" Hydraulics & Pneumatics Eaton Aerospace. [ Accessed March 2011
50% Reduction in Hydraulic system Weight
Cost and Complexity
Blended wing/fuselage
Nickol, C., McCullers, L., “Hybrid Wing Body Configuration system sudies”
2% increase in lift to drag ratio
Complexity/Cost 10% additional Fuselage Weight
Hybrid Laminar Flow Control
Braslow, A., "A History of Suction-Type Laminar-Flow Control with Emphasis on Flight Research" Monographs in Aerospace History- Number 13, page 37, February 1999
Assume 55% Laminar Flow Over Wing, Tail, Nacelle
Cost/complexity
12/3/2018

13. Thickness to Chord Ratio
Design Parameters
Parameter
Wing
Horizontal Tail
Vertical Tail
Clmax
2.5 -
Thickness to Chord Ratio
0.1
0.05
Sweep
25 degrees
Taper Ratio
0.3
0.5
Aspect Ratio
9.45
6.16
1.92
Fuselage (ft)
Length
160
Width
13.5
Height
Thickness
0.5

14. Tail Sizing Process Distance from C.G. to Main Landing Gear
Distance from Tail to Main Landing Gear
Force to Rotate Aircraft at High-Hot Conditions
Horizontal Tail Surface Area
Distance from Engines to Center
Distance from Tail to C.G.
Force for Single Engine Out at Takeoff at High-Hot Conditions
Vertical Tail Surface Area
Determine Angle of Tilt for V-tail
12/3/2018

15. Tail Configuration Total Tail Area: 533 ft2 V-Tail 300 Tilt
Max force required
Takeoff Rotation (High Hot)
Single Engine Out (High Hot)
Total Tail Area: 533 ft2
12/3/2018

16. Aircraft Selection Pugh’s Method generated 3 top concepts
Tube and Wing H-Tail
Night Panther Tail Mounted Engines
Night Panther Wing Mounted Engines
Carpet plots identified best design
12/3/2018

17. Carpet Plot Studies
12/3/2018

18. Carpet Plot Studies, Cont.
12/3/2018

19. Carpet Plot Studies, Cont.
Chosen Design
12/3/2018

20. Final Carpet Plots Wing Loading 115 lbs/ft2 Thrust to Weight 0.34
Takeoff Gross Weight
183,000 lbs
Lower TOGW
Unreasonable CL
12/3/2018

21. Engine Placement Trade-offs
Over wing engines
Blow-over effect
Reduces FOD ingestion
Tail mounted engines
Additional plumbing
Bleed air and fuel lines
Close proximity of 2 engines
Maintenance
12/3/2018

22. Tail Configuration Trade-offs
V-Tail
Vertical and horizontal lift components
Noise shielding
H-Tail
Lack of horizontal stabilizer
12/3/2018

23. night PANTHER 170” 13” 122” 14.5” Length Fuselage Diameter Wing Span
Height
170”
13”
122”
14.5”

24. Cabin Layout Lavatory Galley Closet Exit Row 20 First Class Seats
204 Economy Seats
5 Lavatories
4 Galleys
2 Closets
Lavatory
Galley
Closet
Exit Row
12/3/2018

25. Cross Section 12’ 87” Seat Pitch Seat Width Aisle Width 31” 17” 20”
66”
20”
12/3/2018

26. Airfoil Selections Main Wing Airfoil V-Tail Airfoil
Boeing 737 Midspan Airfoil Modified to
t/c = 10%
V-Tail Airfoil
NACA/Langley Symmetrical Supercritical
12/3/2018

27. Over-the-Wing Blowing
Enhanced circulation and lift augmentation
Dramatic increase in CLmax with marginal increase in drag
Reductions in field length and approach speeds
Efficiency of 70% δf δj
% of Lift
20o
14o 8%
50o
35o
14%
Tjet
LFN
TFN δf
Tjet = TFNCos(δj) + LFNSin(δj)
L = Lwing + LFN
12/3/2018

28. High-Lift Devices Double Fowler Slotted Flaps Over-the-Wing Blowing
Clmax T/O
Clmax Land
2.5
4.5
Lift Force Distribution
12/3/2018

29. Drag Build Up Drag Component Assumption/Source Cdc Cruise Values
Parasite Wing
55% Laminar flow on outboard section (Q = 1.05)
0.0040
Parasite Fuselage
turbulent flow (Q=1)
0.0071
Parasite Nacelles
45 % Laminar flow (Q = 1.5)
0.0051
Parasite Tail
55% Laminar Flow (Q = 1.03)
0.0028
Perturberance and Leakages
Additional 5% parasite Drag
0.001
Wave Drag
Locke’s Fourth Power Law
9.4917e-004
Induced Drag
Course Materials
0.0015
Trim Drag
Induced Drag caused by tail
0.0003
Drag due to flaps deployment
Raymer Eq.12.37
n/a
12/3/2018

30. Drag Polars Calculated using sizing codes
From airfoil, min drag = 0.5
12/3/2018

31. V-n Diagram Highest possible load due to gust at critical M:
at 775ft/s
Minimum:
at 775ft/s
12/3/2018

32. Payload Available (lbs)
Economic Mission A B
Point
Range (nmi)
Payload Available (lbs) A
620 (Chicago to New York)
47,000 B
2363 (Seattle to Miami)
41,000 C
4768 (LA to Tokyo)
21,500 C
12/3/2018

33. Payload Range Validation

34. Performance Summary Criteria Value Max Range (no Payload) 6000 nmi
Max Range Velocity
687 ft/s
Endurance Velocity
681 ft/s
Stall Speed
560 ft/s
Cruise Speed
723 ft/s
Max Speed
829 ft/s
Takeoff Speed
180 ft/s
Takeoff Distance
3614 ft
Landing Speed
198 ft/s
Landing Distance
4183 ft
12/3/2018

35. Geared Turbofan Engine
Efficiency Assumptions
Fuel/Hydraulic pump losses
Gear box efficiency
Transfer structural losses
Parasitic turbine cooling
Bypass Ratio
SL Static Thrust
Pressure Ratio
Thrust Required
12:1
32,000 lbs 50
62,220 lbs
12/3/2018

36. Engine Description
12/3/2018

37. Oxides of Nitrogen LEC Dilution Combustor Technology
Pre-Mixing Combustor
ICAO databank of engines used to approximate NOx production
12/3/2018
Data courtesy of GE Aviation

38. Structural Configuration
12/3/2018

39. Wing/Fuselage Wing 2 main spars 22 ribs per wing
Average rib spacing- 2’
Fuselage
Average frame spacing in main cabin- 22”
12/3/2018

40. Load Paths Wing/Fuselage Interaction Elliptic doors and windows
Low carry through wing box
Elliptic doors and windows
Efficiently contoured landing gear bay
Minimize stress concentrations
12/3/2018

41. Material Selection 60% Composite Aircraft
High strength-to-weight ratio
Overall weight savings
Future of aircraft design
Other materials for critical design areas
Composites not on free-stream surfaces
12/3/2018

42. Material Breakdown Carbon laminate Fuselage V-tail Main-wing box
Outboard/Inboard hinged panels
Outboard/Inboard flaps
Outboard/Inboard spoilers
Ailerons
Carbon Sandwich
V-tail control surface
Engine nacelle
Wingtip
Other composites
Pressure bulkheads
Cabin floor structure
Aluminum
Leading edges
Fiberglass
Integration surfaces
Nose
Aluminum/Steel/Titanium
Engine pylons

43. Weight Location Table Weight (lb) Loc. (ft) CG Moment (ft-lb)
Weight (lb)
Loc. (ft)
CG Moment (ft-lb)
CG Moment (ft-lb)
Structures
Equipment
Wing
13300
76.5
31920
APU
3000
130
Horizontal Tail
2000
145
Instruments
300 75
1173
Vertical tail
1500
-99150
Hydraulics
200
105
-5218
Fuselage
23,300 76
67570
Avionics
2800 15
178948
Main Landing Gear
6000 90
-66600
Electrical
900
-23481
Nose Landing Gear
2500
159750
Furnature
18,000
70380
Propulsion
Airconditioning
140
Engine - Installed
11,000
31900
Anti-icing
Engine Controls
261
Handling 50
195.5
Starter
580
Flight Controls
1000
3910
Nacelle Group
5000
14500
Fuel system/tanks
550
1320
Empty Weight
99,300
Useful Load
TOGW
183,000
Passengers
33000
128700
Crew
1080
4212
Cargo
15400
60060

44. Center of Gravity Empty +Fuel +Fuel – PAX (Takeoff) +Pax
Static Margin
Empty
9.39%
+Fuel
16%
+Fuel – PAX (Takeoff)
15%
+Pax
11%
- Half Wing Reserve
13%
Landing

45. Stability and Control Tail Control Surfaces
Sized by high hot rotation conditions
Used wing airfoil
Control surface: 27% of chord
One engine out trim
9 degree deflection on one tail
No deflection on other tail
12/3/2018

46. Noise Reduction Features
Engine Nacelle Chevrons
Toboggan Fairings
Geared Turbofan
Wing Shielding
Early Climb Out
Saved PDF on flash drive- reference for more info
BPF blade passing frequency
Data courtesy of NASA’s Acoustics Discipline Team, research done at Penn State University, and the DLR Institute of Propulsion Technology (Berlin, Germany)

47. Meeting Noise Requirements
Feature
Reduction in Noise
Chevrons
8 EPNdB
Toboggans
2 EPNdB
Geared Turbofan
20 EPNdB
Wing Shielding
4 EPNdB
Early Climb Out
Total Reduction:
42 EPNdB
Night Panther
Standard
915m
6500m
12/3/2018

48. Aircraft Cost Cost Analysis outlined in Raymer text
96.7 Million Dollars* RDT+E & Flyaway cost
Roughly 125 Orders for production
*2025 Dollars, adjusted for average inflation rate of 2.25%
**Utilizing average Southwest Airlines Rates, average rate of increase for fuel, etc
Cost
Night Panther
Direct Operation Cost*
.15 /seat-mile
.18 / seat-mile
Economic Trip Net Revenue** (JFK to ORD)
.11/seat-mile
.07/ seat-mile
Long Haul
Net Revenue**
(SEA to MIA)
.02/seat-mile
.01/ seat-mile
12/3/2018

50. Compliance Matrix
Requirement
Target
Threshold
Current
Passengers
220
200
224
Range [nmi]
3,200
2,850
Cruise Mach Number
0.80
0.70
0.75
Noise [dB]
(TO + Sideline + Approach)
231 (42 dB below Stage 4)
241 (32 dB below Stage 4)
LTO NOx [g/KN]
24.75 (75% below CAEP 6)
39.6 (60% below CAEP 6)
21.8 (77% below CAEP 6)
*Fuel Burn [lb/pax-nmi]
0.045 (50% < ref.)
0.06 (33% < ref.)
0.051 (44% < ref.)
*Field Length [ft]
7,000
8,200
3,800
12/3/2018
*Boeing reference aircraft

51. Future Development Several concepts can be implemented
Overall configuration
Electric taxi
Not predicted to be cost effective
Based on linear model up to 2025
12/3/2018

52. Possible Next Steps Further analysis of tail control surfaces
Comparison of airfoil properties
Over-wing blowing effects analysis
Detailed structural analysis
CFD
12/3/2018

53. QUESTIONS?
12/3/2018