2. Oklahoma State University Aerospace Capstone Orange Team Final Presentation “Shamu: A Whale of a Plane” April 16, 2001

3. Orange Team2 Orange Team Presentation Overview  Team Architecture and Group Responsibilities  Technical Group Reports –Aerodynamics Group –Propulsion Group –Structures Group  Financial Overview  Highlight Video  Questions

4. April 16, 2001Orange Team3 Orange Team Architecture

5. April 16, 2001Orange Team4 Technical Group Responsibilities  Aerodynamics Group –Design of the aircraft  Airfoil Selection  Wing and Tail Sizing  Fuselage Configuration  Control Surface Sizing

6. April 16, 2001Orange Team5 Technical Group Responsibilities  Aerodynamics Group (con’t) –Integration of Propulsion Needs  Speed Controller, Motor, and Battery cooling –Adaptation to Structural Requirements  Wing carry-through structure, tail mounting, and control linkages –Construction Drawings

7. April 16, 2001Orange Team6 Technical Group Responsibilities  Propulsion Group –Testing  Power, Capacity, and Thrust from past motors and batteries –Selection and Sizing  Motor, Propeller, Batteries, and Gear Box –System Performance  Theoretical Flight Profile with Aerodynamics Group Optimization  Develop Sortie Strategy from Prototype Flight Tests

8. April 16, 2001Orange Team7 Technical Group Responsibilities  Structures Group –Structural Analysis and Design  Major Components are Wing, Fuselage, Tail, and Landing Gear –Construction Techniques and Materials –Component Placement –Group Responsible for Aircraft Construction

9. 8 Orange Team Aerodynamics Group Tiffany Boehm – Lead Luke Bell Charles O’Neill Greg Schulke

10. April 16, 2001Orange Team9 Aerodynamics Group  Preliminary Design Considerations –Optimization –Conceptual sketches were drawn by entire team –Additional sketches from underclassmen

11. April 16, 2001Orange Team10 Aerodynamics Group  Optimization –Blends the contest rules and scoring details with aerodynamic and physical principles. –Produces the best scoring mission profile. –Also defines some aircraft information such as wing area and the amount of lift needed.

12. April 16, 2001Orange Team11 Aerodynamics Group Optimization Program Logic Input: Guess Values Score Output: Optimized Iterate Takeoff Geometry Propulsion Cruise

13. April 16, 2001Orange Team12 Aerodynamics Group

14. April 16, 2001Orange Team13 Aerodynamics Group  Preliminary Design Considerations –Evaluation of conceptual design –Selection of aircraft configuration –Further design decisions –Payload configuration exploration

15. April 16, 2001Orange Team14 Aerodynamics Group  Five main configurations were considered in detail.  Conventional design chosen using decision matrix.

16. April 16, 2001Orange Team15 Aerodynamics Group  Further design decisions for configuration –Wing placement –Tail configuration

17. April 16, 2001Orange Team16 Aerodynamics Group  Payload configuration –Speed of payload exchange –Structural considerations –Weight

18. April 16, 2001Orange Team17 Aerodynamics Group  Detail Design Considerations –Main airfoil selection –Stability and control development –Drag analysis and reduction –Further development of the optimization program

19. April 16, 2001Orange Team18 Aerodynamics Group  Airfoil Selection –Wing span limited by contest rules. –Wing area and needed lift performance found using the optimization program –Polar plots used to find an airfoil with the desired lift and drag performance –Eppler 423 airfoil was chosen

20. April 16, 2001Orange Team19 Aerodynamics Group  Stability and Control Issues –Weight and balance –Sizing of vertical and horizontal tail surfaces –Trim analysis –Aileron sizing –Polyhedral analysis

21. April 16, 2001Orange Team20 Aerodynamics Group  Drag Analysis and Reduction –Identify main sources of drag –Design refinements for reduction of drag –Post-production modifications for further reduction of drag

22. April 16, 2001Orange Team21 Aerodynamics Group Drag Breakdown

23. April 16, 2001Orange Team22 Aerodynamics Group  Steps taken to reduce drag –Improve surface smoothness of entire aircraft –Smooth, rounded transitions between surfaces –Tapered surfaces for the fore and aft assemblies –Fillets between the wing and fuselage surfaces –Fillets between the tail and fuselage surfaces –Wheel pants

24. April 16, 2001Orange Team23 Aerodynamics Group Empire State Building 1.4 Large Birds (Ravens).40 Shamu.03 Drag Coefficients

25. April 16, 2001Orange Team24 Aerodynamics Group  Optimization Program refinements –Aerodynamic Additions  Inclusions of drag analysis –Propulsion Additions  Experimental values integrated into program  Flight testing data used to further refine the program

26. April 16, 2001Orange Team25 Aerodynamics Group  Final Design Summary –Conventional aircraft configuration –Low wing –Polyhedral wing –Cylindrical fuselage

27. 26 Propulsion Posse pro·pul·sion - (pr -p l sh n) n.  The process of driving or propelling.  A driving or propelling force.  Amanda Ciskowski

28. 27 Propulsion Posse Team Members Binaya Thapa – Lead Blake Cook Millay Brians

29. April 16, 2001Orange Team28 Propulsion Overview  Literature Survey  Restrictions  Motor Selection  Battery Selection  Propeller Selection

30. April 16, 2001Orange Team29 Contest Restrictions  Motor –Restricted to Only Two Companies –Maximum Amperage - 40 Amps –Propeller Driven Brushed Electric Motor –Unmodified and “Over-the-Counter”  Battery –Nickel-Cadmium –Maximum Weight - Five Pounds –“Over-the-Counter”

31. April 16, 2001Orange Team30 Motor Selection  Power Output – 1150 Watts  AstroFlight Motors –640 –660 –690

32. April 16, 2001Orange Team31 Motor Efficiency versus Current

33. April 16, 2001Orange Team32 Motor Figure of Merits Decision FactorWeightAstro 40Astro 60Astro 90 Power Output.201 Efficiency.300 Ability to Handle Current Load.100 Cost.1001 Weight.210 Availability.1000 Score1.0-.10-.2

34. April 16, 2001Orange Team33 Battery Selection  Application  Capacity per Mass  Weight

35. April 16, 2001Orange Team34 Battery Statistics Part NumberSize Capacity (mAh) Mass (g) Price (US Dollar) Capacity per Mass (mAh/g) N-800ARA800343.0023.53 N-1300SCRSub-C1300522.2525.00 N-4000DRLD40001605.5025.00 N-1250SCRL4/5 Sub-C1250433.5029.06 N-3000CRC3000844.5034.17 N-1900SCRSub-C1900543.5035.19 RC-2400Sub-C2400545.5044.44

36. April 16, 2001Orange Team35 Battery Figure of Merits Decision FactorWeightN-1900SCRRC-2400N-3000CR Weight.401 Efficiency.2011 Capacity per Mass.3011 Cost.10 Total1.00.80

37. April 16, 2001Orange Team36 Propeller Selection  Types of Propellers –APC –Wood –Carbon Fiber –Epoxy Composite  Pitch to Diameter Ratio  Theoretical/Experimental Analysis –Wind Tunnel Testing

38. April 16, 2001Orange Team37 Final Propulsion System Final Propulsion System  AstroFlight – 661 Motor  Gear Box Ratio – 2.71  37 Cells of RC-2400 Batteries  22x20 Bolly Propeller

39. 38 Structures Group Michael Ayres – Team Lead Jim Meiseman Voon-Seng Chea Chir Siang Pea Naoki Hosoda Loh Yuh Jogendran Pulendran Cheng Shan Gan

40. April 16, 2001Orange Team39 Structures Overview  Fuselage  Wing  Tail Section  Landing Gear  Speed Loader

41. April 16, 2001Orange Team40 Fuselage Structure Options  Longerons  Reinforced Skin  Stringers  Keelson

42. April 16, 2001Orange Team41 Fuselage Figures of Merit  Weight  Bending Strength  Connection Interface  Construction Complexity

43. April 16, 2001Orange Team42 Wing Structure Options  Tube Spar  C-Channel Spar  End Grain Balsa Spar  Hybrid Spar

44. April 16, 2001Orange Team43 Wing Figures of Merit  Weight  Bending Strength  Connection Interface  Construction Complexity

45. April 16, 2001Orange Team44 Landing Gear Types  Conventional Bow  Single Stroke Strut  Two-Stroke Strut

46. April 16, 2001Orange Team45 Landing Gear Figures of Merit  Weight  Drag  Ground Steerability  Dependability  Manufacturability

47. April 16, 2001Orange Team46 Final Design Materials, carrythrough structure, and construction methods Fuselage - Foam/Carbon Fiber Sandwich - Rotocut Tooling - Balsa Sandwich Wing Carrythrough

48. April 16, 2001Orange Team47 Final Design Cont’d Wing and Tail Section - Foam/Carbon Fiber Sandwich - Feathercut Tooling and Formica Templates - Landing Gear Carrythrough Landing Gear - Multiple Layers of Carbon Fiber Speed Loader - Custom Sized Duffle Bag

49. 48 Financial Overview Amanda Ciskowski- Chief Engineer

50. April 16, 2001Orange Team49 Financial Overview  Funding –Corporate and private sponsorship –Material Donations  Expense Categories –Mechanical and Electrical systems –Consumable materials

51. April 16, 2001Orange Team50 Expense Breakdown

52. April 16, 2001Orange Team51 Thank you to our sponsors…  Mercruiser  Advanced Composites Group  Pump and Motor Works, Inc.  Phillips 66  Chevron-Phillips  OSU Flight Factory  Advanced Racing Composites  AstroFlight  NASA  Charles Machine Works  Anheuser-Busch  Frankfurt-Short-Bruza Associates

53. April 16, 2001Orange Team52 More sponsors…  William and Evelyn Ciskowski  Glen and Chris Taylor  Garryl and Tracy Keel  Keith and Barbara Keel

54. April 16, 2001Orange Team53 Special Thanks to…  Dr. Arena and Joe for all of their help  Dan Bierly, our pilot  Dr. Delahoussaye for his support…and the microwave  Janet Smith and Sally Kellenberger for the survival kits

55. April 16, 2001Orange Team54 Questions?