1. AAE451 Conceptual Design Review
Team 2
Chad Carmack
Ben Goldman
Aaron Martin
Russell Hammer
Ryan Mayer
Donnie Goepper
Jake Schaefer
Phil Mazurek
Abhi Murty
Chris Simpson
Shane Mooney
John Tegah

2. Conceptual Design Outline
Mission Summary
Concept Summary
Best Design
Advanced Technologies Review
Sizing Code
Engine Modeling
Aerodynamics
Performance
Structures
Stability and Control
Noise
Cost
Summary

3. Mission Statement
To be the primary systems integrator of a high speed, long range executive transport system with unprecedented efficiency and minimal environmental impact.

4. Design Mission 3 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 7100 nm 200 nm Los Angeles Hong Kong1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9
7100 nm
200 nm
Los Angeles
Hong Kong
Alternate
0-1: Take off to 50 ft : Climb to 5000 ft. (Best Rate)
1-2: Climb to ft. (Best Rate) 6-7: Divert to Alternate 200 nm
2-3: Cruise at Mach : 45 minute Holding Pattern
3-4: Decent to Land (No Range Credit) 8-9: Land
4-5: Missed Approach (Go Around)

5. Concept Review

6. Aircraft Concept Walk-Around
Lifting Canards
Fuselage – aft
Mounted Engines
Noise Shielding
Vertical Stabilizers
Low Wing
Circular Fuselage
Spiroid Wing-Tips

7. Major Design Parameters
Value
Thrust / Weight Ratio
0.34
Aspect Ratio 12
Wing Loading
87 (lb/ft2)
Wing Area
796.4(ft2)
Wing Span
97.8 (ft)
Canard Area
147.4 (ft2)
Canard Span
36.4 (ft)

8. Scale Three View

9. Interior Cabin Arrangement

10. Cabin Amenities and Features
List of Amenities / Features
Four Passenger Conference Seating
One Galley
One-Conference Table
One-Cocktail Galley
Conference-Computer Table
Two-Lavatories
Pull Down Projector Screen
Twenty -28”x18” Windows
Six-Reclining Seats
One-Pilot Rest Area
Two -3 Passenger Sofa Seats
Two-Reclining Crew Seats
Two-Shared Tables
Maximum Passengers: 16
Volume / Passenger max cap.: 150 (ft3)

11. Cabin Layout and Dimensions

12. Lifting Canard Designed to provide more lift at high speeds
Pros
Cons
Designed to provide more lift at high speeds
Reduces induced drag at cruise
May allow for smaller main wing
Downwash from canards has large effect on main wings
Stability demands that canard stall before main wing, therefore main wing never reaches full lift potential

13. Canard & N+2
The canard design had a smaller empty weight, but had a larger fuel burn which implies worse total drag performance

14. Vertical Stabilizer
Two vertical stabilizers are placed directly on the wings to shield the engines. The intent was to reduce the noise signature of the aircraft.

15. Engine Mounting
Two engines mounted in rear of the fuselage for reliability and thrust requirements
The benefit of mounting the engines above the wing and surrounded by vertical stabilizers will keep noise levels low.

16. Cabin Considerations
Stand up cabin in the aisle to accommodate the “plush” comfort level
Crew areas expanded to allow sleeping quarters for reserve pilot
Two lavatories and galley necessary for full passenger load

17. Summary of Advanced Concepts
Geared Turbofan
15% reduction in fuel burn
Noised lowered to approximately 20 dB below stage 4
50% below CAEP-6 emissions
Composites
20% reduction of structural weight
Spiroids

18. Spiroid Wingtips 6-10% drag reduction in cruise flight
Yielded a 10% improvement in fuel burn
Installed on more than 3,000 aircraft, including several business jet types, as well as the Boeing 737 and 757 airliners
Aid the US Federal Aviation Administration in increasing airspace capacity near airports
 Potential for large decreases in wake intensity. This could substantially alter the requirements for separation distances between lead and following aircraft in airport traffic patterns

19. Geometry Calculations
MATLAB Code Flowchart
Initial Guess Wo
Geometry Calculations
We Prediction
Wfuel Prediction
Engine Model
Drag Calculation
Set W0 guess to W0 calc
W0 Calculation
W0 = W0 calc

20. Calibration Factors Calibrated Canard design to Beechcraft Starship
Weight
Conventional
Canard
Fuel Weight
0.89
Empty Weight
1.16
0.96
Gross Weight
1.03
0.98

21. Technology Factors Composites reduced structural weight by 20%
Spiroids reduced SFC drag by 10%
Canards reduce induced drag (assume 5-10%)
Geared turbofan reduced fuel burn (SFC) by 15%
Application
Tech Value
WStructure
0.80
Di (canard only)
0.93
SFC
0.75

22. Carpet Plots - Conventional
Best AR = 10 => W0 = lbs
Limited by top of climb (100 41k ft) and takeoff distance (4000 ft)

23. Carpet Plots - Canard
Limited by top of climb (100 41k ft) and takeoff distance (4000 ft)

24. Canard Sizing Summary AR = 12 T/W = .34 W0/S = 87 W0 = 71,300 lbs
Wempty = 38,000 lbs
Wfuel = 31,500 lbs
Landing ground roll = 2200 ft
Takeoff ground roll = 3900 ft

25. Drag Prediction Component drag build up based on four types of drag
Drag: pressure, induced, miscellaneous, and wave
Components: pylons, engines, fuselage, wings, etc.
Induced drag is a sum of that produced by both the main wing and canard, with the canard contributing its own downwash onto the main wing
Viscous effects are not strong enough to damp out the downwash over the distance between the canard and main wing

26. Drag at Cruise CD,cruise = 0.02665
CD = kCD,p + TF*CD,i + CD,misc + CD,w
= 1.05CD,p + TF*CD,i + CD,w =
CD,cruise =

27. Wing Airfoil Selection
Required Cl
Takeoff: 1.2
Cruise: 0.46
Landing: 2.0
Supercritical Airfoil use
Comparison of RAE 2822 to NASA SC(2)-0610.
NASA airfoil would provide higher lift but have a greater moment.
NASA SC(2)-0610 selected for wing design.
Geometry and comparison from

28. Flap Selection Regular flap vs Single slotted Flap
Higher lift, but more complex
Can meet required lift of 2.0 with only single slotted flap
gov/ _ pdf

29. Tail airfoil Selection
Small operating range for angles of attack.
Laminar flow foil selected to reduce drag.
Symmetrical airfoil.
NACA 64(2)-015 was selected for use.

30. Canard airfoil
Symmetric Supercritical airfoil was desired for the canard

31. Engine Modeling Engine Deck similar to CF-34 Scaled From Data Sheet
Generated with ONX/OFFX
Scaled From Data Sheet
Based on required thrust

32. Engine Description Geared Turbofan Sea Level Static Thrust: 11,900 lb
Bypass Ratio: 12:1

33. Mission Modeling
Calculated fuel weight for individual mission segments 3 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9
7100 nm
200 nm
250 lbs
125 lbs
1350 lbs
25200 lbs
280 lbs
130 lbs
2700 lbs
1400 lbs

34. V-n Diagram
Aircraft limited by Clmax at low speeds and by the structure at high speeds
Design speed for max gust same as cruse speed due to Clmax at altitude
Maneuver load factor
nmax = 2.5
nmin = -1
Gust load factor
ns_max = 2.63
ns_max = -1.13
Dive Mach
Md = .87

35. V-n Diagram

36. Payload Range Diagram *Mach = 0.85 Altitude = 41,000 feet
Still air range

37. Thrust Curves at Sea Level

38. Thrust Curves at Cruise

39. Structural Overview Fillets Pylons Supported by Bulkheads/ Beams
Landing Gear Supporting Structure
Frames
Door Sills
Window Sills
Fillets
Fillets
Shear Webbing
Main Spar
Longerons
Fillets

40. Structural Load Paths

41. Structural Highlights

42. Material Selection Process
Static Dissipation and Electrically Conductive
Icephobic Coatings
Maintenance
Cost
Density and Fatigue Resistance

43. Materials Silicones Composites Aluminum Steels Advanced Alloys
Ability to maintain its elasticity and low modulus over a broad temperature range provides excellent utility in extreme environments
Protection against static accumulation and discharge
Composites
Light and very strong but maintenance is an issue and is expensive
No Established data
Aluminum
Lower cost
Easier certification
Established maintenance
Steels
Used mainly in the landing gear
Advanced Alloys
Higher elastic modulus
Density savings

44. Aircraft Components
Fuselage skins and wing stringers - Aluminum Alloys
Better Fatigue Crack Growth (FCG) performance reduces structural weight.
Canard, Control surfaces and wing skin panels – Glare Composites
Resistant to damage at high temperatures
Landing gear – Steel Alloy
High strength, corrosion resistant
Nose, Leading and Trailing edges - Carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP)
Lighter than titanium
Higher fracture toughness and yield strength

45. Static Longitudinal Stability
Assuming symmetry about the centerline, changes in angle of attack no influence on yaw or roll of aircraft.
To achieve stability in pitch, any change in angle of attack must generate resisting moments.
Static Margin = (Xnp – Xcg)
c.g. must be ahead of the neutral point in order to be stable
Typical transport aircraft: 5-10%
Xcg
Xnp
Fuel CG
[%fuselage] SM
[% chord]
Full
68.3
18.3
Empty
62.0
85.8

46. Control Surface Sizes Control Surface Surface Area [ft2] Rudder 10 x 2
Aileron 15
Elevator 35
Raymer Figure 6.3 – Aileron Sizing
Raymer Table 6.5 – Elevator Sizing

47. Noise Estimation The Method
Assumed that engine is primary noise source
Evaluated noise due to exhaust and fan
Obtained EPNL values with a few approximations:
Altitude at 6000m from runway after Takeoff
Altitude at 2000m from runway before Landing
Volumetric Flow Rate
Temperature
Pressure

48. Noise Estimation The Process Find sound power of each source
Convert to sound power level (SWL)
Calculate sound pressure level (SPL) based on SWL and distance from source
Assumes spherical wave propagation
Adjust for A-weighted SPL
Calculate dominant tonal frequency
Convert to Noy based on SPL and dominant tonal frequency using equal loudness contours
Sum Noy for both the exhaust jet and fan
Convert from Noy to PNL
Calculate EPNL based on PNL

49. Noise Estimation The Results
EPNL dB prediction for engine models without airplane noise shielding
Geared Turbofan
Unducted Fan
Sideline 97
102
Takeoff 90 95
Approach
100

50. Noise Estimation
Noise estimation for installed Geared Turbofan in EPNL dB
Stage 4 - total 274 EPNL dB
Location
Airplane Noise [EPNL dB]
Sideline 87
Takeoff 80
Approach
Total
254

51. Cost: Purchase Price Production run of 150 aircraft assumed
Based on comparable aircraft, projected market growth
RAND DAPCA IV Model
CERs prepared from statistical cost data
Predicts RDT&E and flyaway costs
Engine costs estimated separately
GTF in appropriate thrust class assumed to exist in 2020

52. Cost: Purchase Price Engineering Tooling Manufacturing Quality Control
Development Support
Flight Test
Manufacturing Materials
Engine Cost
Avionics Cost
Investment Cost Factor
Production Run
Aircraft Purchase Price
$1,250,000,000
$764,000,000
$2,186,000,000
$355,000,000
$210,000,000
$44,700,000
$886,000,000
$3,610,000
$1,820,000
10%
150 airframes
$49,700,000
(2009 dollars)

53. Cost: Operations and Maintenance
Included expenses and assumptions:
Utilization: 500 hours per year – 200 cycles
Fuel Costs
Price: $4.50/gallon Jet A
Crew salaries
Three crew on average flight, paid per block hour
Estimated using CERs from Boeing data
Maintenance (labor and materials)
MMH/FH: 3
Materials costs estimated using RAND CERs
Insurance
Hull Insurance Rate: 0.32%
Depreciation
Average 10% of airframe value per year

54. Cost: Operations and Maintenance
Fuel Crew Maintenance labor Maintenance materials Insurance Depreciation Total Cost (No Depreciation) Total (Depreciation) (500 flight hours per year)
$1,510/hr
$714/hr
$282/hr
$619/hr
$136,000/yr
$4,250,000/yr
$3,400/hr
$8,500/hr
(2009 dollars)

55. Summary

56. Requirements Compliance Matrix
Performance Characteristics
Target
Threshold
Current
Still Air Range
7100 nm
6960 nm
MTOW Takeoff Ground Roll
4000 ft
5000 ft
3900 ft
Max. Passengers 16 8
Volume per Passenger per Hour (Design)
13.3 ft3/(pax⋅hr)
2.28 ft3/(pax⋅hr)
20.7 ft3/(pax⋅hr)
Cruise Mach
0.85
0.8
Initial Cruise Altitude
41000 ft
40000 ft
Cumulative Certification Noise Limits
274 dB
254 dB
Cruise Specific Range
0.3 nm/lb
0.26 nm/lb
0.31 nm/lb
Loading Door Sill Height
4 ft
5 ft
Operating Cost
$4100/hr
$4300/hr
$3400/hr

57. Summary of N+2 Goals Criteria Goal Our Aircraft Achieved Noise
-42 dB below Stage 4
-20 dB No
Emissions
-75%
-50%
Fuel Burn
-40%
-25%
Takeoff Field Length
-33%

58. Plausibility Not Currently N+2 goals are difficult to meet
Worth pursuing
Significant improvements over current performance possible

59. Additional Work Structural Analysis Aerodynamic Analysis
Fatigue and temperature analysis
Sizing of spars and ribs
Aerodynamic Analysis
CFD
Wind Tunnel Testing
Manufacturing process
Engine
Boundary layer ingestion

60. Questions?