2. Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Progress Presentation
Matthew Chin, Aaron Dickerson Brett J. Ulrich, Tzvee Wood
November 4th, 2004
Group #1 – Project #3

3. Presentation Outline Review of Project Objectives & Deliverables
Early Design Concepts
Computer Software Implementation
Data Digitalization
WINFOIL Evaluations
Engineering Equation Solver Calculations
Design Concepts
Wing
Landing Gear
Tail
Prop
Schedule Update

4. Project Objectives Compete in SAE Aero East Competition
Apply areas of Mechanical Engineering education to a real life problem:
Dynamics
Fluid Mechanics
Modeling & Simulation
Analysis of Stresses

5. Project Objectives Dynamics/Analysis of stresses Fluid Mechanics
Force of drag, weight, and gravity on the wing/fuselage
Fluid Mechanics
Used in analysis of airfoil
Modeling & Simulation
For CAD models of wing, fuselage, landing gear

6. Anticipated Deliverables
Finished calculations
Final wing selection
Sketches of the final design
CAD drawings - wing, fuselage, landing gear
Projected construction budget
Parts order

7. Problems To Watch Out For
Ideal design needs to be able to be actually constructed
Stability of construction so that the plane does not fall apart on landing
Time management for construction
Previous team only used one design did not iterate
More practice on shrink wrap coating procedure for wing

8. Early Design Concepts
Biplanes originally popular for increased lifting capacity
At this scale the effect of the additional wing is not worth the additional weight and construction cost

9. Early Design Concepts Dual wing plane also considered
Initially thought to be able to produce significantly more lift than standard monoplane
Alignment of wings can produce major parasitic losses if done improperly

10. Early Design Concepts Flying wing early popular concept
One large wing has significantly larger area than standard monoplane
Possibly difficult to build and transport
Still under consideration

11. Early Design Concepts Plane Concepts Criterion Flying Wing Monoplane
Plane Concepts
Criterion
Flying Wing
Monoplane
Biplane
2 Sequential Wings
Construction Feasibility 1 -1
Design Novelty
Simplicity of Calculations
Ruggedness
Stability
Durability
Weight
Lift
Cost
Σ +1 3 5
Σ -1
Σ 0 4
Rank 2

12. Data Digitalization
SAE Documentation Provides Data for LMN-1 Airfoil (similar to Selig 1223, Liebeck LD-X17A and other RC aircraft)
Data includes:
The dependence of CL on Aspect Ratio and Angle of Attack
Viscous drag due to lift
Ratio of Thrust to Static Thrust vs. Speed

13. Data Digitalization
The following graphs are provided in the aforementioned white paper

14. Data Digitalization
Large samples of data points were recorded and entered into MATLAB
manually
In the event you missed it, they’re computerized now!

15. Wing Analysis With WINFOIL
Monoplane first examined
First sought to examine the effects of different designs on L/D Ratio:
Constant Chord
Tapered
Swept Back Tapered
For each design L/D ratio is the same
Can be easily seen from CL α CD
CL=L/(0.5*AP*V2*ρ)
CD=D/(0.5*AP*V2*ρ)
Each Wing Analyzed With Same Planform Area
Assumed 6inch Fuselage
Constant
Chord
Tapered
Wing
S B
Area (in2)
Aspect Ratio
1.62
MAC (Mean Aero Chord)
33.27
33.72
Stall Speed (mph)
12.98
Max Speed (mph)
101
Max L/D
7.5
at what MPH 30
Min Sink Speed (ft/s)
5.29 20

16. Wing Analysis With WINFOIL
Selected Eppler 193 Mod Wing
Previous designs
Suggestion of Senior Design Coordinator
Higher CL than other airfoils such as NACA 6409
Relatively easy to build
No fine trailing edge
Reasonable Thickness
Decided against use of Swept Back Tapered
Too many variables
Requires too much precision
Tapered Wing is still under consideration

17. Wing Analysis With WINFOIL
Wing Profile
Criterion
NACA 6409
Eppler 193 Mod
Construction Feasibility
Design Novelty 1
Simplicity of Calculations
Ruggedness
Stability
Durability
Weight
Lift -1
Cost
Σ +1
Σ -1 2
Σ 0 6 8
Rank

18. Wing Analysis With WINFOIL
Wings
Criterion
Constant Chord
Tapered Chord
Sweptback Tapered
Construction Feasibility 1 -1
Design Novelty
Simplicity of Calculations
Ruggedness
Stability
Durability
Weight
Lift
Cost
Σ +1 3 4
Σ -1 6
Σ 0 5 2
Rank

19. Wing Analysis With WINFOIL
Same Root Chord
Tapered Wings
Wing Taper Ratio 1
0.75
0.5
0.25
Area (in2)
MAC (Mean Aero Chord)
33.27
29.31
25.88
23.21
Aspect Ratio
1.62
1.85
2.16
2.59
Stall Speed (mph)
12.98
13.87
14.98
16.41
Max Speed (mph)
101
105
112
118
Max L/D
7.5
8.05
8.70
9.46
at what MPH 30
Min Sink Speed (ft/s)
5.29
5.1
4.89
4.66 20 21 22 23
Effect of wing taper ratio on various performance characteristics examined
Assumptions:
Wing holds entire plane weight assumed to be 7lbs
Max 2hp
No fuselage accounted for

20. Wing Analysis With WINFOIL
Same Area for Wing
Constant
Chord
Tapered
Wing
S B
Area (in2)
1998
Aspect Ratio
1.8
MAC (Mean Aero Chord)
33.27
33.72
Stall Speed (mph)
12.31
Max Speed (mph) 98
Max L/D
7.68
at what MPH 30
Min Sink Speed (ft/s)
4.68 19
Flying Wing Analysis
Like the Monoplane L/D ratio is independent of wing design for wings of same area

21. Wing Analysis With WINFOIL
Same Root Chord – Flying Wing
Full 60 In Taken as Wing Span, No Parasitic Losses
Tapered Wings
Wing Taper Ratio 1
0.75
0.5
0.25
Area (in2)
1998
MAC (Mean Aero Chord)
33.27
28.48
25.88
23.29
Aspect Ratio
1.8
2.13
2.4
2.88
Stall Speed (mph)
12.31
13.38
14.21
15.57
Max Speed (mph) 98
104
107
114
Max L/D
7.68
8.51
9.12
10.05
at what MPH 30
Min Sink Speed (ft/s)
4.68
4.46
4.32
4.11 19 20 21

22. Wing Analysis With WINFOIL
WINFOIL 3D Rendering
Still experiencing problems exporting from WINFOIL to CAD programs for tapered wings

23. Wing Features Being Considered
Hoerner Plates – reduce tip losses
Dihedral Angle – reduces chance of stall under banked conditions
May not be necessary for a 60” wingspan

24. Add’l Computer Analysis
Previously generated MATLAB curve fits utilized in EES for calculations
Entire current EES model included in presentation handouts

25. Add’l Computer Analysis
Based upon white paper and aerodynamic principles
Input Design Parameters
Takeoff distance (e.g., <190ft) 28 ft
Landing Distance (e.g., <380ft) 46 ft
FuselageLength 10 in
FuselageWidth 5 in
FuselageBoomLength 40 in
WingSpan 60 in
WingAR 1.62
WingTaper 1.0
S_Ref 1800 in2

26. Add’l Computer Analysis
Output Values
Takeoff velocity 48 ft/s = 33 mph
Stall velocity 49 ft/s = 34 mph
Maximum weight (plane + payload)
Next generation of EES development
Currently Weight is an input
Benefits
Rapid design
Reduced chance for calculation errors
Continuous refinement - design called for and time permitted
Reusable in future years

27. Add’l Computer Analysis
Mathematical analysis entered into to EES

28. Add’l Computer Analysis
Mathematical analysis entered into to EES

29. Landing Gear
Tricycle
Conventional Tail Dragger
Tandem

30. Landing Gear Tail dragger Tricycle
Only uses two forward main wheels
Reduces weight
Reduces drag
May be unstable when aircraft turns
Tricycle
Three wheel configuration
Increases control on ground if equipped with steerable front wheel
Tandem usually used on large aircraft

31. Landing Gear Landing gear week point in past designs
CAD Model for Conventional Landing Gear Primary Assembly
Aluminum support
Nylon wheels

32. Landing Gear Simulate impact of a 30lbs plane dropping from a stall
Applied 80lbs to the surface simulating attachment to the plane

33. Other Plane Features
Boom length – too long can create increased drag and instability
Vertical stabilizer height – if too large, the control surface induces a large moment leading to instability
Led to a crash in 2002

34. Tail Design
Vertical Stabilizer
Single
Dual Configuration

35. Tail Design Stabilizer/Elevator Fixed Stabilizer Portion
Moveable Elevator
Requires complex mechanism to move elevator
Increases drag if not trimmed for the specific cruising speed of the aircraft
Stabilator
Serves double duty as a stabilizer and elevator
Rotates on aerodynamic center
Mechanism to rotate stabilator will be less complex than required for stabilizer/elevator
Theoretically reduces drag
Generally used in very fast aircraft

36. Prop Selection Propeller selection depends upon the size of the engine
Propeller will be purchased from outside source
Precise dimensions difficult to manufacture by hand
Higher grade materials with higher strength to weight ratio available commercially

37. Prop Selection Competition rules mandate use of a O.S. .61 FX engine
0.607 cu in displacement
Manufacturer recommends the following props:
11x8-10
12x7-11
12.5x6-7

38. Prop Selection
Dynathrust Props ( sells injection molded fiberglass and nylon propellers
Higher strength to weight ratio than wood props
Prop manufacturer reccomends the following props:
11x7-8
12x6
A 12x8 prop costs only $3.00
Manufacturing labor time cost will also be saved

39. Materials Balsa wood Injection molded fiberglass and nylon
Light metal, such as aluminum
Heat shrink monocoat for wing
Rip-stop Nylon
Carbon fiber tubing

40. Schedule Update

41. Conclusions Digitalized data enables swift calculations in EES
Design team has evaluated past difficulties
Wing design is on schedule
Select final wing profile
Select monoplane or flying wing
Landing gear will be selected when plane design is finalized
Monoplane = Conventional Tail Dragger
Flying Wing = Tricycle
Tail will consist of a single vertical stabilizer, exact shape to be determined when wing design is complete
Prop will be outsourced to save time and money

42. We Welcome Your Questions and Feedback
Thank You

43. References http://students.sae.org/competitions/aerodesign/east