1. 1 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Optoprime Conceptual Designs, LLC. “DC-3 NextGen” Team 2 AJ Berger Colby Darlage Joshua Dias Ahmad Kamaruddin Pete Krupski Josh Mason Camrand Tucker

2. 2 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL SDR Outline Mission Statement Requirements Overview Use Case Scenarios Advanced Technologies Design Requirements Concept Selection Cabin Layout Constraint Analysis Most Recent Sizing Summary of Concept Conclusion

3. 3 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Mission Statement To satisfy our customers through the design of an advanced mid-range aircraft capable of relieving congestion at major hubs throughout the world. The aircraft will: Operate from lesser-equipped airports throughout the world. Maintain a high cruise speed while limiting negative impact on the environment. Satisfy customer needs without sacrificing safety. This “DC-3NG” will revolutionize the future market with its high reliability, exceptional comfort, and high profitability – three difficult aspects to master “ The Douglas DC-3 … is universally recognized as the greatest airplane of its time. Some would argue that it is the greatest of all time.” (www.boeing.com) “The DC-3 was not only comfortable and reliable, it also made air transportation profitable.” (www.boeing.com)

4. 4 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL System Requirements Review 2058 Market –Asia, Australia, Africa Customers Needs –Short Runways, Cost, Environmental Impact Advanced Technologies

5. 5 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Use Case Scenario 1 Hong Kong to Madras, India (2000nm) –ESTO from Hong Kong (3,000 ft, upwind section of runway) –Extended Range Cruise –ESL at Madras (6,000 ft runway) Takeoff & Climb Cruise Climb ADS-B Continuous Descent Approach & Full Stop Landing Hong Kong Madras

6. 6 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Use Case Scenario 2 Sydney (8,000 ft) to Perth (11,200 ft) (1769 NM) – refueling/reload Perth to Coober Pedy (4,685ft) (900 NM) – without refueling Coober Pedy to Sydney(893 NM) Climb Cruise Descent Climb Cruise Descent Reload without Refuel Climb Cruise Descent to Full Stop Reconfigure to Cargo, Reload with Refuel Sydney Perth Coober Pedy

7. 7 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Use Case Scenario 3 Climb Cruise Climb Climb Cruise Climb Descent Loiter Full Stop Landing Gary (3000 ft) to Boulder (4100 ft) (793 NM) Rerouted to Durango (9200ft) (218 NM) Rerouted back to Boulder (Lands and refuels) Climb Boulder Gary Durango

8. 8 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Advanced Technologies Colby Darlage

9. 9 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Technology Readiness Level (NASA) www.nasa.gov

10. 10 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Composite Materials Carbon-Fiber Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) Central Reinforced Aluminum (CentrAl) Ceramic Matrix Composites (CMCs) Glass-Reinforced Fiber Metal Laminate (GLARE)

11. 11 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Carbon-Fiber Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) - Wings, fuselage, tail surfaces and doors - if 38% structural weight made from composites 40% reduction in empty weight 39% reduction in wing area 33% fuel saving Central Reinforced Aluminum (CentrAl) - Wing-weight reduction 20% more than (CFRP) - Simple Repairs Composite Materials

12. 12 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Ceramic Matrix Composites (CMCs) - Hot Section Engine Shrouds & Components - High temperature 1650°C - 50% reduction in engine weight Glass-Reinforced Fiber Metal Laminate (GLARE) - Leading edges - Impact resistance - Double-curved sections (Lofting) Composite Materials http://www.phoenix-xray.com

13. 13 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Unducted Fans Advantages –Could achieve 30-40% lower specific fuel consumption than current turbofan engines –Can still achieve speeds comparable to turbofans Counter-Rotating Configuration –Efficiency increases 6-10% compared to single rotor –Reverse thrust levels up to 60% of takeoff thrust www.flug-revue.rotor.com

14. 14 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Wave Rotor Combustion System Highly steady inflow and out flow conditions Provides significant improvement in specific fuel consumption (~15%) AIAA-2002-3916-938

15. 15 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Fischer-Tropsch-type process –Eliminates Traditional Kerosene fuels –Synthesized fuel (addresses oil shortage) Biofuels –Addresses environmental issues Green Freedom™ –Synthesized from atmospheric CO 2 and H 2 O from nuclear power plant cooling towers –Eliminates environmental issues Carbon Neutral Alternative Fuels

16. 16 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Solar Power –Advantages Eliminates need for fuel Unlimited supply of power No harmful emissions Low operating cost Ability to fly long distances –Disadvantages Only charges when in sunlight

17. 17 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Preliminary Propulsion Design Power Plant –Unducted Fan Dual Rotor –Wave rotor combustion Fuel –Synthesized Fuel Fischer-Tropsch-type Green Freedom™ Electrical system supplemented by solar power Green Freedom™

18. 18 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Concept Selection Pete Krupski

19. 19 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Major Design Requirements Design Criteria Short Runway Energy Efficiency PAX Climate/Comfort Range Gate Time Easy Maintenance Low Noise Limited Terminal Service Obstacle Clearance Crew Cost

20. 20 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Aircraft concept selection Pugh’s Method 1.Develop concepts 2.Compare/Rate concepts 3.Evaluate ratings 4.Eliminate, add or modify concepts 5.Repeat the process 6.Arrive at best concept

21. 21 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Considered Concepts/Configurations “Electric” “Solar Powered” “Dual Fuselage” “Biplane” “Dual Boom” “Joined Wing” “Blended Wing”

22. 22 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Technology Readiness Level Solar Powered Dual Fuselage/Joined Wing Electric Blended Wing Dual Boom Biplane www.nasa.gov

23. 23 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Concept 1: Dual Fuselage blogmedia.thenewstribune.com Decreased induced drag Increased range Increased weight Increased bending strength Increased runway length required Ideal for seaplane design Decreased torsional rigidity Decreased aircraft length Feasible only for extremely large passenger aircraft

24. 24 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Concept 2: Joined Wing Less induced drag Increased longitudinal stability Structural weight savings Increased structural stiffness Reduced wetted area and parasite drag Direct lift and side force capability Increased fuel capacity Increased interference drag More complicated aerodynamics and controls

25. 25 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Cabin and Fuselage Layout A.J. Berger

26. 26 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Fuselage Layout 100 Seat Single Class 3 Lavatories, 1 Galley Length - 157 ft Ext Diameter - 12.5 ft Int Diameter - 11.5 ft Capacity for Large Cargo Door

27. 27 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Passenger Fuselage 20 Passengers Per Section 30 in Aisle 5 ft from floor to overhead bin Large Overhead Bins 7ft 9in from floor to Ceiling

28. 28 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Seat Layout

29. 29 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Preliminary Sizing and Constraint Analysis Joshua Dias

30. 30 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Walk-Around Chart Canard Possibly required for stability/ control Necessity to be determined Trailing Edges Direct Lift/ Side Force Capability Aft-Mounted Engines Rotor Path behind PAX compartment Fuselage Noise Reduction Composite Structure Weight savings Corrosion Resistance Increased Fuel Capacity Accessibility Capability for Large Cargo Door Canard mounted high for jet way access Joined Wing Drag Reduction Structural Weight Savings

31. 31 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Constraint analysis Major performance constraints: –Cruise altitude: 35,000 ft –Takeoff altitude: 5000 ft (std. day, conservative) –Cruise Mach: 0.78 –Takeoff distance: 3500 ft (balanced field length) –Landing distance: 3500 ft (balanced field length)

32. 32 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Performance Calculations L/D max = 17 –C L(max) = 5 L/D (2 nd segment climb) = 16.5 L/D (cruise) = 15 Number of Engines = 2 CD 0 = 0.012 Oswald efficiency factor = 0.69 Aspect Ratio = 6

33. 33 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Trade Studies Wingloading = 110 psf T/W = 0.40 Wingloading = 140 psf Wingloading = 80 psf T/W = 0.30

34. 34 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Trade Studies 34 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

35. 35 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Operating Envelope Design Point T/W: 0.25 β (fuel fraction) W/S: 100 psf

36. 36 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Compliance Matrix ComplianceTargetThresholdCurrent TOGW (lb) < 70,000 lb< 75,000 lb95,000 lb Number of PAX 10090100 Runway Length (ft) < 2500 ft< 3000 ft4533 ft Range (NM) > 2500 NM> 2000 NM2000 NM SFC (lb/lb*hr) < 0.5< 0.60.5955 Thrust Available (lbf) 40,000 lbf25,000 lbf25,520 lbf

37. 37 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Next Steps Move forward with selected concept –Detailed analysis and sizing –Finalize aircraft features –Performance and Control Cost –SFC estimation –Operating Global Impact –Carbon neutral flights

38. 38 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Questions?

39. 39 SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL References “Now That’s a Reliable Engine…” July 17,2006. http://www.cfm56.com/index.php?level2=blog_viewpost&t=75http://www.cfm56.com/index.php?level2=blog_viewpost&t=75 Boeing Current Market Outlook 2007 “The Airplane that Never Sleeps” July 15, 2002. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/feature/737qc.htmlhttp://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/feature/737qc.html “DC-3 Commercial Transport” http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/dc-3.htmhttp://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/dc-3.htm “Aerospace Sourcebook”, AviationWeek & Space Technology, Jan 2007 “Aerospace Sourcebook”, AviationWeek & Space Technology, Jan 2008 Raymer, D.P. “Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach” AIAA 2006 Roskam, J., “Airplane Design Parts I-VIII”, DARCorporation, KS, 1994-2007 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, http://www.bts.govhttp://www.bts.gov Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.govhttp://www.bls.gov R. Onishi, Mitsubishi Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan “Flying Ocean Giant: A Multi-Fuselage Concept for Ultra-Large Flying Boat” AIAA-2004-696 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, Jan. 5-8, 2004 WOLKOVITCH, J. (ACA Industries, Inc., Torrance, CA), “The Joined Wing: An Overview” Journal of Aircraft 1986 0021-8669 vol.23 no.3 (161-178)