Upload
hoangkhuong
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Aircraft Design ClassAircraft Design Class
Sam B. Wilson III
Chief Visionary Officer
AVID LLC
www.avidaerospace.com
9 September 2008
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 2
OOTTTTTTTactical Technology OfficeTactical Technology Office
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 3
Design MethodsDesign Methods
What Shape?
What Size?
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 4
Design Design ““As DrawnAs Drawn””
Computer evaluation
of Conceptual Designs
“As Drawn” Assumesfixed external mold-lines
Weight as independentvariable - “loopclosure”
JSF X-35BJSF X-35B
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 5
To design a supersonic fighter/attack aircraft thatoffers the operational flexibility of Short Takeoff andVertical Landing (STOVL)
Need to make the same design compromises as aconventional fighter, plus one: use the availablethrust in a manner that allows a controlled verticallanding
This single added constraint requires a moresystematic approach to the design of an aircraft.
Integration Challenge:Integration Challenge:
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 6 Ref NASA CR-177437
Define wing & horizontal stabilizer geometry
Located engine “vertical thrust” center with
respect to aerodynamic center
V/STOL Aircraft Design ProcessV/STOL Aircraft Design ProcessStep 1Step 1
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 7
Add minimum length inlet/diffuser
Add cockpit and forebody
Ref NASA CR-177437
V/STOL Aircraft Design ProcessV/STOL Aircraft Design ProcessStep 2Step 2
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 8
Add vertical tails
Assign location dependent masses
landing gearlanding gear
flight controlsflight controls
radarradar
Ref NASA CR-177437
V/STOL Aircraft Design ProcessV/STOL Aircraft Design ProcessStep 3Step 3
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 9
Add Payload bays / weapon hardpoints
Add fuel tanks
Assign location independent masses
Service centersService centers
AAvionicsvionics
APUAPU
Ref NASA CR-177437
V/STOL Aircraft Design ProcessV/STOL Aircraft Design ProcessStep 4Step 4
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 10
Add lead weight ballast!
CG too far forwardCG too far forward
Vertical thrust center too far aft Vertical thrust center too far aft
V/STOL Aircraft Design ProcessV/STOL Aircraft Design ProcessStep 5Step 5
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 11
Overview of StudyOverview of Study
Description of four candidate propulsionsystems which can be based on a single gasgeneratorFirst order effects of the four propulsionsystems on the sizing of a STOVL fighter
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 12
Design MissionDesign Mission
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 13
STOVL Lift Systems StudySTOVL Lift Systems Study
RALS RULS MFVT L+L/C0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
gas generatorAugmentorrear/ventralC & Aductsfront nozzle
Unscaled Propulsion System WeightsW
eig
ht
(lb
)
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 14
Thrust to Weight DefinitionsThrust to Weight Definitions
(review)(review)
Engine T/W = Uninstalled Max A/B ThrustCTOL Engine Weight
System T/W = Installed Max A/B Thrust Total Propulsion System Weight
Lift System T/W = Balanced Vertical ThrustTotal Propulsion System Weight
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 15
STOVL Lift System PerformanceSTOVL Lift System Performance
R A L S R U L S MFVT L+L/C
0
2
4
6
8
10
Vertical ThrustMax. Aug Thrust
System Thrust to WeightT
hru
st
/ W
eig
ht
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 16
STOVL Lift System BreakoutSTOVL Lift System Breakout
R A L S R U L S MFVT L+L/C
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
AirframePropulsionFixed Equip.
PayloadFuel
Group Weights
Wei
gh
t (l
b)
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 17
STOVL Gross Weight SensitivitySTOVL Gross Weight Sensitivity
R A L S R U L S MFVT L+L/C
0
1
2
3
4
5
Design Point SensitivityP
erce
nt C
hang
e
10% change in manuver performance
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 18
Cruise Engine Thrust for L+L/CCruise Engine Thrust for L+L/C
1.00.90.80.70.60.5
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
L/C eng Vert. Thrust
Lift engine Thrust
Thrust Distribution
Aft Nozzle Location
Th
rust
(lb
)
Lift engine at .42 LC.G. at .58 L
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 19
Hover BalanceHover Balance
Thrust Required for Vertical Landing
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
0.42 0.46 0.50 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.66 0.70 0.74
Station Location
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 20
Off Design PerformanceOff Design Performance
Fallout Performance
RALS RULS MFVT L+L/C
Ps @ M=1.50, 30k'
Nz @ M=1.20, 40k'
Nz @ M=0.60, 20k'
410
4.05
3.14
1123
4.04
3.77
861
4.03
3.59
583
4.05
3.34
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 21
Conclusion for Lift EnginesConclusion for Lift Engines
If high maneuver performance and/or dry super-cruise is required, lift engines have limitedvalue (mission dependent)
Lift System thrust to weight is not a strongfunction of engine T/W for many engineconfigurations
Factors other than mission performance will benecessary to choose a propulsion system
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 22
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 23
CNA Air Panel StudyCNA Air Panel Study
-- Tactical Air Assets for Carrier Task Force
Fighter & Attack Aircraft vs. Multi-Mission Aircraft
STOVL vs. Conventional Carrier Based Aircraft
No Utility Aircraft Assessments
- Used STOVL Strike Fighter TOR Missions
Latest Statement of Future Naval Mission Requirement
Multi-Mission (F/A & SSF) Do All Missions
Subsonic Attack Aircraft Point Designed for Air to Ground
"Blue Water" Fighter Optimized for Fleed Air Defense
- Emphasis on Time Based Technology Trends
Baseline was US/UK ASTOVL "1995 TAD" Assumptions
“1990 TAD” Timeframe Allows for "What is Available"
NASA-Ames Study PlanNASA-Ames Study Plan
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 24
Technology Availability DateTechnology Availability Date
Common: Engine Cycle, Weapons, Avionics, etc.
1990-TAD 1995-TAD
Radar Absorbing Material + 0% + 5%
Internal Weapons Carriage No Yes
1.5M Supersonic Cruise A/B “Dry”
Design Load Factor 7.5 9.0
Technology Factor 90% 85%
Propulsion System T/W ~12 ~15
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 25
DifferentiatorsDifferentiators””1990 TAD1990 TAD”” Aircraft Class Aircraft Class
Fighter Multi-Mission Attack
Structural Tech. Factor -10% -10 % -10%
Design Load Factor 6.5 g 7.5 g 6.5 g
Survivability Impacts No No No
Dry Super-cruise No No No
Plan form Variable Standard Standard
Wing Pivot +30% 0 0
Tail Surfaces Standard Standard Standard
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 26
DifferentiatorsDifferentiators"1995 TAD" Aircraft Class"1995 TAD" Aircraft Class
Fighter Multi-Mission Attack
Structural Factor -15% -15 % -15%
Design Load Factor 9.0 g 9.0 g 6.5 g
Survivability Impacts No Yes Yes
Dry Supercruis Yes Yes No
Planform Variable Diamond Flying Wing
Wing Pivot +30% 0 0
Tail Surfaces Conventional Conventional None
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 27
Ames CNA Study DescriptionAmes CNA Study Description
Three Aircraft Classes
Direct-Lift STOVL
Sea-Based (“Cat / Trap”)
Land-Based
Two Technology Timeframes
1990-TAD
1995-TAD
Philosophy
ACSYNT - Design Synthesis Code
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 28
Baseline Design MissionBaseline Design Mission
250 nmi cruise0.85M at Sea Level
400 nmi cruiseBest Altitude and Mach
150 nmi dash1.5M at 50000 ft
60 minutes loiterBest Mach at 35000 ft
2 min combat1.5M at 50000 ft
Loiter0.3M at Sea Level
High Value Stores Retained for Landing2 Long-Range, Air-to-Air Missiles2 Short-Range, Air-to-Air MissilesGun and Ammo
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 29
Aircraft Class DetailsAircraft Class Details
STOVL Sea-Based Land-Based
Fuselage Structure 0 + 30 % 0
Landing Gear Structure 0 + 30 % 0
Carrier Approach No Yes No
Propulsion Weight + 47% 0 0
Landing Hover T/W 1.16 N/A N/A
Reaction Control System Yes No No
Duct Volume Penalty ~10% 0 0
Loiter in Pattern 10 min 20 min 20 min
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 30
Propulsion SystemsPropulsion Systems
Conventional
Direct-Lift STOVL
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 31
Aircraft EvolutionAircraft Evolution
1990-TAD
1995-TAD
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 32
Baseline AircraftBaseline Aircraft
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
Take
off
Wei
ght
(lb)
Sea
-Bas
ed
Lan
d-B
ased
STO
VL
Sea
-Bas
ed
Lan
d-B
ased
STO
VL
1990-TAD 1995-TAD
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 33
Augmentation in HoverAugmentation in Hover
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
Tak
eoff
Wei
gh
t (l
b)
Sea-Based Land-Based STOVL
Baseline
Derivative
1990-TAD STOVL1990-TAD STOVL
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 34
Dry Super-cruise RequiredDry Super-cruise Required
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
Tak
eoff
Gro
ss W
eig
ht
(lb
)
Sea-Based Land-Based STOVL
Derivative
Baseline
1990-TAD Conventional1990-TAD Conventional
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 35
1990-TAD Growth Factor1990-TAD Growth Factor
0
5
10
15
20
25
Gro
wth
Fac
tor
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Mission Radius (nm)
DesignMissionRadius
Sea-Based
STOVL
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 36
1995-TAD Growth Factor1995-TAD Growth Factor
0
5
10
15
20
25
Gro
wth
Fac
tor
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Mission Radius (nm)
Sea-Based
STOVL DesignMissionRadius
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 37
Required Hover Thrust MarginRequired Hover Thrust Margin1995-TAD STOVL1995-TAD STOVL
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
1.15 1.2
Take
off
Gro
ss W
eigh
t (lb
)
1.25 1.3 1.35
1.16 T/W requirement
Land-Based
Baseline STOVL
T/Whover
Sea-Based
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 389 Sepppt.’08 / pg # 38
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 39
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 40
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 41
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 42
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 43
STOVL Baseline Aircraft
Direct Lift Remote Fan L+L/C
T.O. Gross Weight (LB) 36,331 36,866 39,679
Length (ft) 48. 54. 54.
Wing Area (ft2) 345. 400. 440.
Span (ft) 29.6 32.8 35.1
Thrust (Vertical landing) 29,289 42,142 47,102
Thrust (SLS Dry) 29,289 26,021 27,595
Propulsion Weight (LB) 8,381 8,419 10,014
Engine Weight (LB) 7,532 6,723 7,097
Fuel Weight (LB) 11,387 10,698 11,207
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 44
STOVL Aircraft (Ratios)
Direct Lift Remote Fan L+L/C
Growth Factor 3.20 2.37 3.52
Aspect Ratio 2.5 2.6 2.8
Wing Loading (LB/ft2) 105.3 92.2 90.2
Vertical Thrust/WPS 3.49 5.01 4.70
Dry Thrust/TOGW 0.81 0.71 0.70
Max Thrust/TOGW 1.30 1.14 1.12
ESF 1.21 1.08 1.14
Prop. Sys. Fraction 23.1% 22.8% 25.2%
Fuel Fraction 31% 29% 28%
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 45
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
N.
M./100#
Subsonic M=1.4
Cruise Efficency
DL
LPLC
RFSF
Subsonic 1.4 Mach Number
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
N.m./100#
Cruise Efficiency
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 46
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
Weight
D.L. L+L/C A.L.
Type of A/C
Weight Breakdown
Fuel
Aux. Lift
Engine
Airframe
Payload
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 47
ConclusionsConclusionsImproved enginetechnology allowsthe elimination oflanding thrust-to-weight as the mainSTOVL designconstraint.
The STOVLpropulsion systemdecision drives theaerodynamic shape.
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 48
Engine Weight Engine Weight vsvs. Empty Weight. Empty Weight
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 49
Engine Weight Engine Weight vsvs. Empty Weight. Empty Weight
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
WEng/OWE
OWE/WG
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 50
Distributed PropulsionDistributed Propulsion
DARPA PM: Dr. Thomas Beutner (TTO)
Advanced ESTOL transport configuration development incorporating
distributed propulsion technology and airframe / propulsion integration.
Tools UsedAVID RAPT
AVID HighLift
AVID ACS
FUN3D
CFL3D
USM3D
Powered high-lift systems
• Upper surface blowing
• Augmenter wing
• Blown tails
278-ft field length
15,000 lb -- 25,000 lb payload
Demonstrated distributed propulsion performance
Identified new benefits for Distributed Propulsion
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 51
Span Blowing versus Total LiftSpan Blowing versus Total Lift
Spanloadings for increasing blown span.
CT=1.67, 18 deg USB flaps
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
y/(b/2)
Cl
x c 38% span blowing
55% span blowing
72% span blowing
Drag Polars for increasing blown span.
CT =1.67, 18 deg USB flaps
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
CD
CL
38% span blowing
55% span blowing
72% span blowing
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 52
Canard over door
Small Engines“blowing” ControlSurfaces duringSTOL operationsto reduce size
Small Engines“blowing” FlapsDuring STOLoperations
Variable # of engines used in cruise
(designed to cruise at best SFC)
Notional DemonstratorNotional Demonstrator
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 53
AVID-ACS Type OutputAVID-ACS Type Output
Engine is sized by maneuver or VL (1.2*GW)
Fuel is generated by Fuel burn:
Thrust required = weight/ (L/D)
Fuel = Thrust * SFC
Airframe weight is structure to hold everything:
Fuel tanks = Fuel weight * 3%
Landing Gear = TOGW * 6%
Tails = Control power sizing
Wing = f (AR, Sweep, Area, Taper, T/C)
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 54
ACSYNT Institute: Aircraft Design ToolsACSYNT Institute: Aircraft Design Tools
Parametric design tool
for aircraft synthesis...
Concept
Development
Preliminary
Design
Detailed
Design
•Lots of Designs
•Tradeoff Studies
•“Requirements
Optimization”
•In-depth analysis
•Narrowed to few designs
•Detailed optimization
•Detailed analysis
•Subsystem design &
optimization
ACSYNT
DDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeettttttaaaaaaiiiiiilllllleeeeeedddddd
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 55
ACSYNT
Drawbacks
• Practical – Human designer notinformed as to why final design waschosen
•Technical – Can’t handle step changes(i.e. number of engines, type of controlsurface). Must use continuousfunctions in coding.
???
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 56
Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence
for Aircraft Designfor Aircraft Design
PROS
• Hailed as “Future of AircraftDesign”
•Capture the thoughts of the“great designers” and apply tocomputer aided designprograms
CONS
• Designers are constantlyevolving, requiresevolving code
• Conflicting inputs fromconflicting designers
•Impossible torecreatespontaneousthoughts ofhumans
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 57
Goals of Computer Aided Aircraft DesignGoals of Computer Aided Aircraft Design
Optimization ProgramsOptimization Programs
• Reduce dependence on wind tunnel testing
• Computer code offers “Real Time Design”
• Much smoother transition from paper toprototype
• Reduces common “headaches” associatedwith current aircraft design
• No more “Point Design”
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 58
http://aero.stanford.edu
/reports/nonplanarwings/CWingOpt.html
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 59
Vehicle data ex cept MAV from NASAGSFC / Wallops UAV Databasehttp://uav .w ff.nasa.gov /db/uav _index .html
Unmanned Air VehiclesUnmanned Air Vehicles
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
0.1 1 10 100Wing Span, m
Tot
al W
eigh
t, kg
Gasoline
Electric
Turbine
DARPA MAV
Tr uck
Ter n
Spectr e II
SkyeyeShadow 600
Shadow 200
STM 5B
RaptorPr owler
Pr edator
Por terPioneer
Per seus B
Pathfinder
Outr ider
Model 410
Model 350, M1
Model 324, M1
Javelin
Hunter
Huntair
Hawk-i 7B
Gnat 750
Global Hawk
Fr eewing
Fir ebee
Exdr one Eagle Eye
Dar kstar
Chir on
Aer osonde
Pointer
Gasoline
Electric
Turbine
Theseus
LADF 9” 3.8#
Black Widow
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 60
Caltech
AeroVironment
Microbat
Lutronix
Kolibri
Lockheed Sanders
Stanford Research Institute
100 g.
5 km range, 30 min.
Autonomous Nav.
Video imagery
Mentor
320 g.
30 min.
Hover/translate
GPS
Autopilot
10 g.
3 min.
Acoustic sensors
MEMS wings
50 g.
electrostrictive
polymer
artificial
muscle
Flapping flight
50 g.
1 km range
Teleoperated
Video imagery
Micro Air VehiclesMicro Air Vehicles
MicroSTAR
Black Widow
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 61
Kolibri Micro Air VehicleKolibri Micro Air Vehicle
%
%
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
0 10 20 30 40
Use
ful
Lo
ad,
Wp
l (g
mf)
LuMAV-3A Endurance, E (min)
%
% 175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 5 10 15
Use
ful
Fue
l L
oad
, W
f (g
mf)
LuMAV-3A Range, R (nmi)
fuel
payload
UTRONIX corporation
Flight Speeds Max. demonstrated flight speed in hover mode: 22 kts
Max. predicted flight speed transitioned flight mode: 88 kts
Min. turn radius (for maneuvering): 0 ft
Max. rate of climb demonstrated at 0 kts forward speed: 4800 fpm
Max. controllable rate of descent demonstrated: 1700 fpm
Endurance Max. predicted endurance with no payload: 34 minutes
Demonstrated endurance with mission package: 16 minutes
Range Max. hover-mode range predicted: 15 nmi (ferry range)
Max. transitioned range predicted: 50 nmi (ferry range)
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 629 Septt.’008 / pg # 662
OAVs on the BattlefieldOAVs on the Battlefield
National and Theater
Intelligence,
Surveillance
and Reconnaissance
Systems
Highly SurvivableUpper Tier – Target Acquisition, Cueing
And Prosecution
Organic Air VehiclesAct As the Lower Tier
- Local RSTA
Called by IUGS for
Cross reference prior
to waken Human
Pathfinder for
Ground Vehicles
Final ID before
Authorization to Fire
Answer Human
request of
Information!
Perimeter
Surveillance - IR
against Infantry
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 63
Ducted Fan UAV Inboard ProfilesDucted Fan UAV Inboard Profiles
Batteries
Payloads
Fuel Tanks
Video CPU
GPS CPU
Antenna
Servos
Flight Computer
Memory
Collision
Avoidance
GPS Antenna
IR Camera
Avionics and
Electronics
Top
Payload
Electrical
Subsystems
Duct
Fuel
Tank Fixed
Stators
4 Quadrant VanesLanding Ring
Lower Payload Bay
Engine
Fan
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 64
MEDIUM SMALL
MICROScalable Solution = family of vehiclesScalable Solution = family of vehicles
67” Fan Diameter
Hover and low speed flight
testing completed
25” Fan Diameter
Fully autonomous flight
Full flight speed regime
31” OAV FCS Vehicle
• Low cost manufacturing
• Common components
• Full autonomy
11.5” Fan Diameter
Fully autonomous flight over
full flight speed regime, field
tested by Military in Hawaii
Flight Proven
Autonomous
25
Fu
Fu
LARGE
7” Fan Diameter
Successful hover, low speed
& high speed transition
FCS Vehiclele
ost manuufacturing
mon compponents
utonomy
er
d
9 Sept.’08 / pg # 65
Class IClass I
ARMY FCS• AVID Supports Honeywell in
Contributing Aircraft Design
and Analysis and Propeller
Design and Analysis
• AVID is part of a larger team
for Honeywell including AAI,
Locust, Techsburg
AVID Tools and Expertise• AVID lead for aerodynamic design
through PDR
• AVID designing fan for
performance and acoustics
• Configuration CFD using TetRUSS
and FUN3D
• Performance in AVID OAV
Status• Concept design is underway
• Wind tunnel testing to happen in first
months of 2008
• First flight in 2009