1. 2003 AIAA Cessna/ONR Design Build Fly Competition Design Presentation Oklahoma State University Orange Team

2. The Orange Team  Our Team: G.R.A.D.S. 2003  Global Rodent Airborne Delivery Service  Our Plane: Kitty Hawk

3. Presentation Overview  Team Architecture  Group Responsibilities  Aerodynamics Group  Structures Group  Propulsion Group  Aircraft Overview  Financial Summary  Video  Questions

4. Team Architecture

5. Group Responsibilities  Aerodynamics Group  Sizing and configuration of aircraft  Perform sensitivity studies  Flight performance analysis  Mission Selection

6. Group Responsibilities  Structures Group  Structural design, analysis, and construction of the aircraft  Determining how the aircraft fits in the box  Material and construction method selection  Create all construction documents

7. Group Responsibilities  Propulsion Group  Testing and analysis of possible propulsion components  Selection of propulsion system components  Testing, maintenance, upkeep, and installation of propulsion and electrical systems

8. Aerodynamics Group  Andy Gardos (Lead)  Valerie Barker

9. Aerodynamics Group  Aircraft Design  Goal is to design a competitive aircraft for the competition  Design Phases  Conceptual  Preliminary  Detail

10. Conceptual Design  Mission Selection  Airplane Configuration  Aircraft Component Configurations

11. Mission Selection  Optimization analysis for maximizing score  Results: Fly Missions A and B

12. Airplane Configuration  Four basic configurations were discussed  Canard  Biplane  Flying Wing  Conventional

13. Canard  Pros  Increased lift  Cons  RAC increase  Sizing constraints  Stall characteristics

14. Biplane  Pros  Increased lift  Wing span reduction  Cons  RAC penalty  Increased weight  Not necessary

15. Flying Wing  Pros  RAC reduction  No tail & fuselage  Less drag due to streamlined shape  Cons  Handling qualities  Fitting into the box  Assembly

16. Conventional  Pros  Simplicity  Good handling qualities  Easier to fit in the box  Reasonable RAC  Cons  Larger wing span as compared to other concepts

17. Other Aircraft Components  Main aircraft components  Wing  Tail  Fuselage

18. Wing Design  Airfoil Shape  Wing Size  Wing Vertical Location  Control Surfaces

19. Wing Airfoil Selection  Optimization analysis used to determine the airfoil giving the best overall score.  A high lift airfoil was selected.

20. Wing Size  Initial area and span estimates were provided by our optimization analysis program  Wing Area – 7 ft 2 to 11 ft 2  Wing Span – 7 ft to 8 ft

21. Wing Vertical Location  Low Wing  Pros: Single attach point for gear and wing  Cons: Payload interference, may need dihedral  Mid Wing  Pros: Less drag for certain fuselage cross-sections  Cons: Payload interference, difficult to construct  High Wing  Pros: No interference with payload drop, no dihedral necessary  Cons: Multiple attach points for gear and wing

22. Wing Control Surfaces  Ailerons  Sized using historical estimations from text  25 – 30% of wing chord  45 – 60% of wing span  Flaps  Not necessary  The high lift Eppler airfoil should provide sufficient lift to meet the takeoff distance requirements

23. Tail Design  T-tail  Pros: Horizontal stabilizer effectivity  Cons: Weight increase  Conventional  Pros: Proven design, adequate control  Cons: Increased RAC  V-tail  Pros: Lower RAC, less interference drag  Cons: Complexity, adverse yaw

24. Tail Airfoil  NACA 0009 Airfoil  Symmetrical airfoil  Easy to manufacture

25. Fuselage Design  Conventional with boom  Main fuselage uses  Storage  Structural attach point  Boom advantages  Decreased weight  Collapsibility

26. Sensitivity Studies  Drag Estimates  Increased parasite drag does not significantly increase takeoff distance  Propulsion Efficiencies  Efficiencies greatly affect the takeoff distance  Score was not greatly affected by varying parameters

27. Drag Tests  Full scale model of prototype analyzed using break down method to determine drag contributions.

28. Preliminary Sizing  Optimization Analysis  Wing area, wingspan, battery weight, battery power in TO & climb, cruise velocity  Raymer’s Text  Fuselage length, tail area, control surface sizing, tail dihedral  Microsoft Excel  CG location

29. Sizing Trades & Optimization  Best Score Data Trends  Wing Area – 11.35 ft 2  Wing Span – 8.0 ft  TO Power – 836 W  Cruise Velocity – 54.3 ft/s  Battery Weight – 2.49 lb  Optimal Data Trends  Wing Area – 9.379 ft 2  Wing Span – 7.958 ft  TO Power – 1060 W  Cruise Velocity – 57 ft/s  Battery Weight – 3.24 lb Optimization analysis program ran to get data points

30. Data Trends

31. Stability Calculations  Optimization program performed calculations  Static stability calculated  Longitudinal  Directional  Roll  Dynamic stability not calculated  Our conventional design possesses static stability and should possess dynamic stability as well.

32. Aircraft Dimensions  Wingspan = 7.958 ft  Wing area = 9.379 ft 2  Wing chord = 1.179 ft  Fuselage length = 5.75 ft  Fuselage height = 7.25 in  Fuselage width = 6.75 in  Boom diameter = 0.72 in  Main fuselage length = 3 ft  CG location = 1.212 ft  AC location = 1.295 ft  Tail area = 2.419 ft 2  Tail span = 2.833 ft  Tail chord = 10.25 in  Dihedral angle = 30.6°  Struct. weight = 11.65 lb

33. Mission Performance  Mission A  Score = 4.24  Takeoff Distance = 111.34 ft  Total Time = 3.82 min  Mission B  Score = 3.01  Takeoff Distance = 90.09 ft  Total Time = 4.11 min

34. Structures Group  Aaron Wheeler (Lead)  Patrick Lim  Corky Neukam  Kuniko Yamada  Carin Bouska  Don Carkin  Katie Higgins

35. Structures Overview  Wing/tail  Fuselage  Payload Drop  Boom  Landing gear

36. Wing/Tail Considerations  Composite or conventional?

37. Material Research  Jun-Dec 2002  Studied 3ft sections  Test simulated contest wingtip test  Strength to Weight Ratio Results:  Conventional 255.1  Foam 201.0

38. Wing/Spar Connection  The wings were attached to each other with a carbon spar through a spine

39. Fuselage Material Matrix

40. Fuselage Shape Considerations  Low Drag  Fit in Box  Construction Ease

41. Payload Deployment  Simple Mechanism  Low Profile Tabs  Positive Use of Gravity  Rapid Deployment

42. Boom Decision Matrix  Shapes to be Considered  Evaluation Criteria  Scale  Optimum Choice

43. Boom Material Considerations  Weight  Yield Strength  Deflection  Young’s Modulus  Ease of Flight

44. Boom Tolerances  Location  Center Axis  0.5°  Distance from Pinned End  Sizing of Hole Tolerance  0.001inch

45. Snap-Pin Boom Assembly  External Locking Snap-Mechanism  Spring loaded  Self-locking  Retractable option

46. Snap-Pin Tail Assembly  Internal Locking Snap-Mechanism  Spring loaded  Self-locking  Foldable option

47. Main Gear Assembly  External Locking Snap-Mechanism  Quick Assembly/Storage  Forward Swept  Pneumatic Braking System

48. Propulsion Group  Brandon Blair (Lead)  Mike Duffy  Phung Ly

49. System Components

50. Contest Requirements  Motors  Battery Powered  Astro Flight or Graupner Brands  Brushed  Batteries  Nickel Cadmium (NiCad)  Maximum Five Pound Weight Limit

51. Contest Requirements  Propellers  Commercially Produced  Must Fit in Box (Less than 24 in.)  Miscellaneous  40 Amps Maximum Current

52. Qualitative Analysis  Motor Configurations  Cost  Rated Aircraft Cost (RAC)  Weight  Propellers  Historical Perspective  Ground Clearance

53. Testing Phase  Motors  Ram-air Cooling Modifications  Propellers  Folding and Traditional Designs  Batteries  Endurance

54. Final Specifications  Motor: Astro Flight Cobalt 40  Gearbox: Superbox 3.1:1 Ratio  Propeller: APC 20” x 13” E  Batteries: 24 Cells, 2400 mAh  Cruise Power: 650 W

55. Aircraft Assembly

56. Final Aircraft

57. Flight Testing  Prototype  9 Total and Successful flights  Refined power requirements  Fine tuned center of gravity  Final Aircraft  Displayed improved flight handling qualities  Showed improved power usage and increased speed

58.  Prototype  13.43 pounds  Final Aircraft  11.65 pounds  Smaller boom and fuselage  More aerodynamic and efficient tail Prototype vs. Final Aircraft

59. Financial Overview  Funding  Corporate Sponsors  Private Donations  Team Members  Expenses  Mechanical and Electrical Components  Construction Materials  Consumables

60. Expense Categories

61.  Aero Srv.  Paul Chaney  Industrial Rubber, Inc.  Westex Document Destruction, Inc.  Sullivan  Whitehead  ICES Thanks To Our Sponsors  PeasCock  Wilcox  OGE  Mercruiser  El Chico’s  NASA  Ditch Witch  OSU SGA

62.  Dr. Arena and Joe, without whom we would not be here today  Dan Bierly, our pilot  Ronnie Lawhon  John Hix for video assistance  Ditch Witch for the use of their airport  Dr. Delahoussaye for technical assistance  Danny Shipka for printing services and design  Ruben Ramen for designing our team logo Special Thanks to...

63. Questioning Period After Video