Upload
edith-burns
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2003 AIAA Cessna/ONR Design Build Fly Competition
Design Presentation
Oklahoma State University Orange Team
The The OrangeOrange Team Team
Our Team: G.R.A.D.S. 2003Our Team: G.R.A.D.S. 2003Global Rodent Airborne Global Rodent Airborne Delivery ServiceDelivery Service
Our Plane: Kitty HawkOur Plane: Kitty Hawk
Presentation OverviewPresentation Overview
Team ArchitectureTeam ArchitectureGroup Group
ResponsibilitiesResponsibilitiesAerodynamics Aerodynamics
GroupGroupStructures GroupStructures Group
Propulsion GroupPropulsion GroupAircraft OverviewAircraft OverviewFinancial SummaryFinancial SummaryVideoVideoQuestions Questions
Team ArchitectureTeam Architecture
Group ResponsibilitiesGroup Responsibilities
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics GroupSizing and configuration of aircraft Sizing and configuration of aircraft Perform sensitivity studiesPerform sensitivity studiesFlight performance analysisFlight performance analysisMission SelectionMission Selection
Group ResponsibilitiesGroup Responsibilities
Structures Group Structures Group Structural design, analysis, and construction Structural design, analysis, and construction
of the aircraftof the aircraftDetermining how the aircraft fits in the boxDetermining how the aircraft fits in the boxMaterial and construction method selectionMaterial and construction method selectionCreate all construction documentsCreate all construction documents
Group ResponsibilitiesGroup Responsibilities
Propulsion Group Propulsion Group Testing and analysis of possible propulsion Testing and analysis of possible propulsion
componentscomponentsSelection of propulsion system componentsSelection of propulsion system componentsTesting, maintenance, upkeep, and Testing, maintenance, upkeep, and
installation of propulsion and electrical installation of propulsion and electrical systemssystems
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Andy Gardos (Lead)Andy Gardos (Lead)Valerie BarkerValerie Barker
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Aircraft DesignAircraft DesignGoal is to design a competitive aircraft for the Goal is to design a competitive aircraft for the
competitioncompetition
Design PhasesDesign PhasesConceptualConceptualPreliminaryPreliminaryDetailDetail
Conceptual DesignConceptual Design
Mission SelectionMission SelectionAirplane ConfigurationAirplane ConfigurationAircraft Component ConfigurationsAircraft Component Configurations
Mission SelectionMission Selection
Optimization analysis for maximizing scoreOptimization analysis for maximizing scoreResults: Fly Missions A and BResults: Fly Missions A and B
Airplane ConfigurationAirplane Configuration
Four basic configurations were discussedFour basic configurations were discussedCanardCanardBiplaneBiplaneFlying WingFlying WingConventionalConventional
CanardCanard
ProsProsIncreased liftIncreased lift
ConsConsRAC increaseRAC increaseSizing constraintsSizing constraintsStall characteristicsStall characteristics
BiplaneBiplane
ProsProsIncreased liftIncreased liftWing span reductionWing span reduction
ConsConsRAC penaltyRAC penaltyIncreased weightIncreased weightNot necessaryNot necessary
Flying WingFlying Wing
ProsProsRAC reductionRAC reduction
No tail & fuselageNo tail & fuselageLess drag due to Less drag due to
streamlined shapestreamlined shapeConsCons
Handling qualitiesHandling qualitiesFitting into the boxFitting into the boxAssemblyAssembly
ConventionalConventional
ProsProsSimplicitySimplicityGood handling qualitiesGood handling qualitiesEasier to fit in the boxEasier to fit in the boxReasonable RACReasonable RAC
ConsConsLarger wing span as compared to other Larger wing span as compared to other
conceptsconcepts
Other Aircraft ComponentsOther Aircraft Components
Main aircraft componentsMain aircraft componentsWingWingTailTailFuselageFuselage
Wing DesignWing Design
Airfoil ShapeAirfoil ShapeWing SizeWing SizeWing Vertical LocationWing Vertical LocationControl SurfacesControl Surfaces
Wing Airfoil SelectionWing Airfoil Selection
Optimization analysis used to determine Optimization analysis used to determine the airfoil giving the best overall score.the airfoil giving the best overall score.
A high lift airfoil was selected.A high lift airfoil was selected.
Wing SizeWing Size
Initial area and span estimates were Initial area and span estimates were provided by our optimization analysis provided by our optimization analysis programprogramWing Area – 7 ftWing Area – 7 ft22 to 11 ft to 11 ft22
Wing Span – 7 ft to 8 ftWing Span – 7 ft to 8 ft
Wing Vertical LocationWing Vertical Location
Low WingLow Wing Pros: Single attach point for gear and wingPros: Single attach point for gear and wing Cons: Payload interference, may need dihedralCons: Payload interference, may need dihedral
Mid WingMid Wing Pros: Less drag for certain fuselage cross-sectionsPros: Less drag for certain fuselage cross-sections Cons: Payload interference, difficult to constructCons: Payload interference, difficult to construct
High WingHigh Wing Pros: No interference with payload drop, no dihedral Pros: No interference with payload drop, no dihedral
necessarynecessary Cons: Multiple attach points for gear and wingCons: Multiple attach points for gear and wing
Wing Control SurfacesWing Control Surfaces
AileronsAileronsSized using historical estimations from textSized using historical estimations from text
25 – 30% of wing chord25 – 30% of wing chord45 – 60% of wing span45 – 60% of wing span
FlapsFlapsNot necessaryNot necessary
The high lift Eppler airfoil should provide sufficient The high lift Eppler airfoil should provide sufficient lift to meet the takeoff distance requirementslift to meet the takeoff distance requirements
Tail DesignTail Design
T-tailT-tail Pros: Horizontal stabilizer effectivityPros: Horizontal stabilizer effectivity Cons: Weight increaseCons: Weight increase
ConventionalConventional Pros: Proven design, adequate controlPros: Proven design, adequate control Cons: Increased RACCons: Increased RAC
V-tailV-tail Pros: Lower RAC, less interference dragPros: Lower RAC, less interference drag Cons: Complexity, adverse yawCons: Complexity, adverse yaw
Tail AirfoilTail Airfoil
NACA 0009 AirfoilNACA 0009 AirfoilSymmetrical airfoilSymmetrical airfoilEasy to manufactureEasy to manufacture
Fuselage DesignFuselage Design
Conventional with boomConventional with boomMain fuselage usesMain fuselage uses
StorageStorageStructural attach pointStructural attach point
Boom advantagesBoom advantagesDecreased weightDecreased weightCollapsibilityCollapsibility
Sensitivity StudiesSensitivity Studies
Drag EstimatesDrag EstimatesIncreased parasite drag does not significantly Increased parasite drag does not significantly
increase takeoff distanceincrease takeoff distance
Propulsion EfficienciesPropulsion EfficienciesEfficiencies greatly affect the takeoff distanceEfficiencies greatly affect the takeoff distance
Score was not greatly affected by varying Score was not greatly affected by varying parametersparameters
Drag TestsDrag Tests
Full scale model of prototype analyzed Full scale model of prototype analyzed using break down method to determine using break down method to determine drag contributions.drag contributions.
Preliminary SizingPreliminary Sizing
Optimization AnalysisOptimization AnalysisWing area, wingspan, battery weight, battery Wing area, wingspan, battery weight, battery
power in TO & climb, cruise velocitypower in TO & climb, cruise velocity
Raymer’s TextRaymer’s TextFuselage length, tail area, control surface Fuselage length, tail area, control surface
sizing, tail dihedralsizing, tail dihedral
Microsoft ExcelMicrosoft ExcelCG locationCG location
Sizing Trades & OptimizationSizing Trades & Optimization
Best ScoreBest Score Data Trends Data Trends Wing Area – 11.35 ftWing Area – 11.35 ft22
Wing Span – 8.0 ftWing Span – 8.0 ft TO Power – 836 WTO Power – 836 W Cruise Velocity – 54.3 ft/sCruise Velocity – 54.3 ft/s Battery Weight – 2.49 lbBattery Weight – 2.49 lb
OptimalOptimal Data Trends Data Trends Wing Area – 9.379 ftWing Area – 9.379 ft22
Wing Span – 7.958 ftWing Span – 7.958 ft TO Power – 1060 WTO Power – 1060 W Cruise Velocity – 57 ft/sCruise Velocity – 57 ft/s Battery Weight – 3.24 lbBattery Weight – 3.24 lb
Optimization analysis program ran to get data Optimization analysis program ran to get data pointspoints
Data TrendsData Trends
Stability CalculationsStability Calculations
Optimization program performed calculationsOptimization program performed calculationsStatic stability calculatedStatic stability calculated
LongitudinalLongitudinal DirectionalDirectional RollRoll
Dynamic stability not calculatedDynamic stability not calculated Our conventional design possesses static stability and Our conventional design possesses static stability and
should possess dynamic stability as well.should possess dynamic stability as well.
Aircraft DimensionsAircraft Dimensions
Wingspan = 7.958 ftWingspan = 7.958 ft Wing area = 9.379 ftWing area = 9.379 ft22
Wing chord = 1.179 ftWing chord = 1.179 ft Fuselage length = 5.75 ftFuselage length = 5.75 ft Fuselage height = 7.25 inFuselage height = 7.25 in Fuselage width = 6.75 inFuselage width = 6.75 in Boom diameter = 0.72 inBoom diameter = 0.72 in Main fuselage length = 3 ftMain fuselage length = 3 ft
CG location = 1.212 ft
AC location = 1.295 ft
Tail area = 2.419 ft2
Tail span = 2.833 ft
Tail chord = 10.25 in
Dihedral angle = 30.6°
Struct. weight = 11.65 lb
Mission PerformanceMission Performance
Mission AMission AScore = 4.24Score = 4.24Takeoff Distance = 111.34 ftTakeoff Distance = 111.34 ftTotal Time = 3.82 minTotal Time = 3.82 min
Mission BMission BScore = 3.01Score = 3.01Takeoff Distance = 90.09 ftTakeoff Distance = 90.09 ftTotal Time = 4.11 minTotal Time = 4.11 min
Structures GroupStructures Group
Aaron Wheeler (Lead)Aaron Wheeler (Lead)Patrick LimPatrick LimCorky NeukamCorky NeukamKuniko YamadaKuniko Yamada
Carin BouskaCarin BouskaDon CarkinDon CarkinKatie HigginsKatie Higgins
Structures OverviewStructures Overview
Wing/tailWing/tailFuselageFuselagePayload DropPayload DropBoomBoomLanding gearLanding gear
Wing/Tail ConsiderationsWing/Tail Considerations
Composite or conventional?Composite or conventional?
Material ResearchMaterial Research
Jun-Dec 2002Jun-Dec 2002Studied 3ft sectionsStudied 3ft sectionsTest simulated Test simulated
contest wingtip test contest wingtip test
Strength to Weight Strength to Weight Ratio Results:Ratio Results:
Conventional 255.1Conventional 255.1Foam 201.0Foam 201.0
Wing/Spar ConnectionWing/Spar Connection
The wings were attached to each other with a The wings were attached to each other with a carbon spar through a spinecarbon spar through a spine
Fuselage Material MatrixFuselage Material Matrix
Fuselage Shape ConsiderationsFuselage Shape Considerations
Low DragLow DragFit in BoxFit in BoxConstruction EaseConstruction Ease
Payload DeploymentPayload Deployment
Simple MechanismSimple MechanismLow Profile TabsLow Profile TabsPositive Use of Positive Use of
GravityGravityRapid DeploymentRapid Deployment
Boom Decision MatrixBoom Decision Matrix
Shapes to be ConsideredShapes to be ConsideredEvaluation CriteriaEvaluation CriteriaScaleScaleOptimum ChoiceOptimum Choice
Boom Material ConsiderationsBoom Material Considerations
Weight Weight Yield StrengthYield StrengthDeflectionDeflection
Young’s ModulusYoung’s Modulus Ease of FlightEase of Flight
Weight Vs Material
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Material
Wei
gh
t (l
b/f
t)
Carbon Fiber
Stainless Steel
Aluminum
Deflection Vs Load
0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Load (lb)
Def
lect
ion
(in
)
Carbon Fiber
Stainless Steel
Aluminum
Boom TolerancesBoom Tolerances
LocationLocation Center Axis Center Axis
0.5°0.5° Distance from Distance from
Pinned EndPinned End
Sizing of Hole Sizing of Hole Tolerance Tolerance 0.001inch0.001inch
Snap-Pin Boom AssemblySnap-Pin Boom Assembly
External Locking External Locking Snap-MechanismSnap-Mechanism Spring loadedSpring loaded Self-lockingSelf-locking Retractable optionRetractable option
Snap-Pin Tail AssemblySnap-Pin Tail Assembly
Internal Locking Internal Locking Snap-MechanismSnap-Mechanism Spring loadedSpring loaded Self-lockingSelf-locking Foldable optionFoldable option
Main Gear AssemblyMain Gear Assembly
External Locking External Locking Snap-MechanismSnap-Mechanism
Quick Quick Assembly/StorageAssembly/Storage
Forward Swept Forward Swept Pneumatic Braking Pneumatic Braking
SystemSystem
Propulsion GroupPropulsion Group
Brandon Blair (Lead)Brandon Blair (Lead)Mike DuffyMike DuffyPhung LyPhung Ly
System ComponentsSystem Components
Contest RequirementsContest Requirements
MotorsMotorsBattery PoweredBattery PoweredAstro Flight or Graupner BrandsAstro Flight or Graupner BrandsBrushedBrushed
BatteriesBatteriesNickel Cadmium (NiCad)Nickel Cadmium (NiCad)Maximum Five Pound Weight LimitMaximum Five Pound Weight Limit
Contest RequirementsContest Requirements
PropellersPropellersCommercially ProducedCommercially ProducedMust Fit in Box (Less than 24 in.)Must Fit in Box (Less than 24 in.)
MiscellaneousMiscellaneous40 Amps Maximum Current40 Amps Maximum Current
Qualitative AnalysisQualitative Analysis
Motor ConfigurationsMotor ConfigurationsCostCostRated Aircraft Cost (RAC)Rated Aircraft Cost (RAC)WeightWeight
PropellersPropellersHistorical PerspectiveHistorical PerspectiveGround ClearanceGround Clearance
Testing PhaseTesting Phase
MotorsMotorsRam-air Cooling ModificationsRam-air Cooling Modifications
PropellersPropellersFolding and Traditional DesignsFolding and Traditional Designs
BatteriesBatteriesEnduranceEndurance
Final SpecificationsFinal Specifications
Motor: Astro Flight Cobalt 40Motor: Astro Flight Cobalt 40Gearbox: Superbox 3.1:1 RatioGearbox: Superbox 3.1:1 RatioPropeller: APC 20” x 13” EPropeller: APC 20” x 13” EBatteries: 24 Cells, 2400 mAhBatteries: 24 Cells, 2400 mAhCruise Power: 650 WCruise Power: 650 W
Aircraft AssemblyAircraft Assembly
Final AircraftFinal Aircraft
Flight TestingFlight Testing
PrototypePrototype9 Total and Successful flights9 Total and Successful flightsRefined power requirementsRefined power requirementsFine tuned center of gravityFine tuned center of gravity
Final AircraftFinal AircraftDisplayed improved flight handling qualitiesDisplayed improved flight handling qualitiesShowed improved power usage and Showed improved power usage and
increased speedincreased speed
PrototypePrototype13.43 pounds13.43 pounds
Final AircraftFinal Aircraft11.65 pounds11.65 poundsSmaller boom and fuselageSmaller boom and fuselageMore aerodynamic and efficient tailMore aerodynamic and efficient tail
Prototype vs. Final AircraftPrototype vs. Final Aircraft
Financial OverviewFinancial Overview
FundingFundingCorporate SponsorsCorporate SponsorsPrivate DonationsPrivate DonationsTeam MembersTeam Members
ExpensesExpensesMechanical and Electrical ComponentsMechanical and Electrical ComponentsConstruction MaterialsConstruction MaterialsConsumablesConsumables
Expense CategoriesExpense Categories
Aero Srv.Aero Srv.Paul ChaneyPaul Chaney Industrial Rubber, Inc.Industrial Rubber, Inc.Westex Document Westex Document
Destruction, Inc.Destruction, Inc.SullivanSullivanWhiteheadWhitehead ICESICES
Thanks To Our SponsorsThanks To Our Sponsors
PeasCockPeasCockWilcoxWilcoxOGEOGEMercruiserMercruiserEl Chico’sEl Chico’sNASANASADitch WitchDitch WitchOSU SGAOSU SGA
Dr. Arena and Joe, without whom we would not Dr. Arena and Joe, without whom we would not be here todaybe here today
Dan Bierly, our pilotDan Bierly, our pilotRonnie LawhonRonnie LawhonJohn Hix for video assistanceJohn Hix for video assistanceDitch Witch for the use of their airportDitch Witch for the use of their airportDr. Delahoussaye for technical assistanceDr. Delahoussaye for technical assistanceDanny Shipka for printing services and designDanny Shipka for printing services and designRuben Ramen for designing our team logoRuben Ramen for designing our team logo
Special Thanks to...Special Thanks to...
Questioning Period Questioning Period After VideoAfter Video