1. JLFANG-LDS Light Dynamic Strikefighter Dr. James Lang, Project Advisor Aircraft Design by Team Bling-Bling Marcus Artates Connor McCarthy Ryan McDonnell

2. Project Overview  Goal: To Design an unmanned multi-mission aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force -Strike Mission -ISR/Attack Mission  Design should be comparable in performance and production to manned aircraft

3. Outline  Design Factors  Mission Profiles  Initial Designs  Final Design  Aerodynamics  Take Off and Landing  Wing Weights  Propulsion and Engine Characteristics  Performance  Stability and Control  Materials and Construction  Subsystems  Maintenance  Future Design Work

4. Design Factors  Design meets all requirements for both missions  Multiple Payload Options  Low Production and Maintenance Costs  Stealth

5. Mission Profiles - Strike StageDescription Fuel Fraction 1 -> 2Taxi, Take Off0.97 2 -> 3Climb, M =.5 to 35000 ft0.97 3 -> 4500 NM at M =.8, range maximized0.846 4 -> 5Descent to 25000 ft1 5 -> 6Strike Patrol, 3 hrs, M =.850.685 6 -> 710 x 360 deg turns0.978 6 -> 8Dash, 50 NM, M = 1.60.986 7 -> 8180 deg turn0.998 8 -> 950 NM Egress, M = 1.60.986 9 -> 10Climb, M =.8 to 35000 ft0.98 10 -> 11500 NM, return0.846 11 -> 12Descent to Sea Level1 12 -> 13Loiter,.5 hr0.99 ~0.425

6. Mission Profiles – ISR/Attack Final Take-Off Weight W TO =13800 lbs W fuel = 5170 lbs W empty = 6630 lbs StageDescription Fuel Fraction 1 -> 2Taxi, Take Off0.97 2 -> 3Climb, M =.5 to 35000 ft0.97 3 -> 4Cruise Out0.986 4 -> 6ISR/Attack Segment0.658 4 -> 532 x 360 deg turns0.974 6 -> 7Cruise Home0.986 7 -> 8Descend to Sea Level1 8 -> 9Loiter,.5 hr0.99 0.425

7. Initial Design Concepts

8. Initial Design Concepts – con’t

10. Decision Matrix RequirementRequiredDesign Option #1Design Option #2Design Option #3 Takeoff Distance8000 ft+++ Landing Distance8000 ft-++ Range550(strike)/TBD(ISR)+ / - 1g Spec. Excess Power-Max. T (M=1.6/25000)900 ft/sec-+- Treq-max -+- Cl max -+- Takeoff Weight --++ Turn Rate in Maneuvering Stage18.0 deg/s max.+++ W fuel -++ W empty -++ W/S)to -++ T/W)to -++ Wf/W -++ S (wing area) ++- B (wingspan) ++- Engine -+- W engine -++ A inlet -++ L engine -++

11. Final Design – 3 View

12. Final Design – Isometric View

13. Final Design – 2-View Internal

14. Aerodynamics  Aspect Ratio, A = 9 (endurance), 6 (combat)  S wing = 171.5 ft 2, b = 39 ft (A=9), b = 36 ft (A=6)  MAc = 4.85 ft, C_root = 6.93 ft  Leading Edge Wing Sweep, Δle= 25°  Taper Ratio, λ =.25  t/c =.167, Δt/c = 6°  NACA 2412  (L/D)max = 16.5, Clmax = 1.8  Mcrit =.815  W/S) TO =81.65 lb/ft 2  W/S) TD =38.7 lb/ft 2

15. Aerodynamics – con’t (Cd0 vs. M)

16. Aerodynamics – con’t (K vs. M)

17. Aerodynamics – con’t (Area-Ruling)

18. Take Off and Landing  Using T/W) TO =0.92 and W/S) TO =81.65, and assuming sigma=0.96 yields a Take Off Parameter of 48  Using Figure 6.1, we calculated a Takeoff Distance of 1600 ft.  Using Landing Equation, Landing Distance = 2995 ft Landing Distance = 2995 ft V stall,TO = 194 fps V TO = 235 fps V TD = 158 fps V stall,TD = 137 fps V stall,TD = 137 fps

19. Weight Estimates for Wings  Using USAF method –W wing = 905.7 lbs  Using USN method –W wing = 1707 lbs  USAF wing– 13.7% wt  USN wing – 25.7 % wt

20. Propulsion  Pratt and Whitney F-100-PW-100  Dual engine setup  W engine = 2098.8 lbs  D engine = 33.739 in  Inlet Area (2) = 3.0 ft 2 each  Nozzle Area (2) = 1.3 ft 2 each  Diffuser Area = 10.4 ft 2  Fuel System Volume = 101.63 ft 3 (above diffuser)

21. Propulsion – con’t Thrust vs. Mach Number

22. Propulsion – con’t T.S.F.C. vs. Mach Number

23. Performance Requirement Requirement CalculatedRequired Military Thrust; M 0.85, 25000 ft - 1g 529.69 fps300 fps Maximum Thrust; M 0.85, 25000 ft - 1g 835.2 fps900 fps Maximum Thrust; M 0.85, 25000 ft - 5g 559.1 fps100 fps Maximum Thrust; M 1.60, 25000 ft - 5g 99.9 fps100 fps

24. Performance - con’t Turn Performance at Sea Level

25. Performance – con’t Turn Performance at 25000 feet

26. Performance – con’t 1-g Specific Excess Power

27. Performance – con’t 5-g Specific Excess Power

28. Performance – con’t Maximum Thrust Sustained Load Factor Envelope

29. Stability and Control  Horizontal Tail (adjustable pitch) –S = 33.25 ft 2 –Span = 5.7 ft each  Vertical Tail –S = 43.27 ft 2 –Height = 5 ft each

30. Materials and Structures  Composite Structure  Pros: –High Stiffness –Light Weight –Good corrosion resistance –High overall performance  Cons : –Expensive –Difficult to repair  Standard spar and stringer structure

31. Subsystems  Landing gear arrangement –Tripod system – 2 wheels to rear, one wheel up front  Hydraulic & electrical subsystems –Not dealt with in depth yet  Avionics components –See internal drawing for placement of Avionics

32. Final Design – 2-View Internal repeated

33. Maintenance  Removable panels – easy access for servicing engine  Composite structure – replacement of structural parts is somewhat difficult, but weight saving benefits are valuable and thus composites are a good choice  More analysis should be done on lifetime cost of maintenance of composites versus more traditional aluminum

34. Future Work Needed - Refinement of aircraft weight - Refinement of aircraft weight - Examine maintenance needs - Examine maintenance needs - Cost analysis of materials used - Cost analysis of materials used - Further sizing of wings and fuselage - Further sizing of wings and fuselage - Optimization of plane to mission profiles - Optimization of plane to mission profiles - Control and Dynamics - Control and Dynamics