AIRCRAFT DESIGN RESEARCH AND AIRCRAFT DESIGN RESEARCH AND EDUCATION AT UNIVERSITY OF NAPLESEDUCATION AT UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES

F. Nicolosi

fabrnico@unina.itfabrnico@unina.it

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aerospaziale (DIAS)Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aerospaziale (DIAS)www.dias.unina.itwww.dias.unina.it

University of Naples University of Naples ““Federico IIFederico II““, Naples, Italy, Naples, Italy

EWADE 09 – 9° European Workshop on Aircraft Design Education – Sevilla 13-18 May, 2009

LAYOUTLAYOUT

-- RESEARCH ACTIVITIES (Topics)RESEARCH ACTIVITIES (Topics)-- TOOLS FOR AIRCRAFT DESIGNTOOLS FOR AIRCRAFT DESIGN-- AIRCRAFT DESIGN IN NAPLES (History and Link with AIRCRAFT DESIGN IN NAPLES (History and Link with

Companies)Companies)-- A RECENT EXAMPLE : DESIGN OF A LIGHT TWIN A RECENT EXAMPLE : DESIGN OF A LIGHT TWIN ENGINE AIRCRAFTENGINE AIRCRAFT

EWADE 09 – 9° European Workshop on Aircraft Design Education – Sevilla 13-18 May, 2009

University of Naples “Federico II”

Dep. of Aerospace Engineering (DIAS)• About 40 Professors and Researchers• About 6-8 Post-Doc• About 30 PHD students • Research and teaching activities in :

- Aerodynamics- Aerospace structures- Flight Mechanics and Aircraft Design- Aerospace Systems (Space Eng.)- Propulsion

• ABOUT 2 Millions of € /year of research contracts (from EC and from companies)=> About 40 Engineers/year employed

University of Naples “Federico II”Dep. of Aerospace Engineering (DIAS)

ADAG (Aircraft Design and Aeroflightdynamic Group)Research Group

- 4 Professors- 2 Post-Doc- 3 PHD students- About 10 Engineers

ADAG RESEARCH ACTIVITIES (1)

Light Aircraft Design - RPV Design

G97 P92-P96 TLS RPV

EASY-FLY , STOL Ultralight in composite

Wing-fuselage junction design (collaboration with TU Delft, Prof. Boermans)

ADAG RESEARCH ACTIVITIES (1)Aircraft Design TOOLS

AEREO CODE

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

-10 0 10 20

αb [deg]

CL

δ = −18°δ = 0°CLeq

δ

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05

CL

CD

Break-down del coefficiente di resistenza

visc wing+visc fus+fus_int

+fus_ind+hor_o

+carr e raffr+ind h (trim)

TOT

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

CL

CM

δ = −18° δ = −15°δ = −12° δ = −9°δ = −6° δ = −3°δ = 0°

δ

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

50 100 150 200 250

V [Km/h]

Livello del mare e percentuali riferite alla potenza massima.

P_disp [hp] 100%P_disp [hp] 90%P_disp [hp] 85%P_disp [hp] 75%Pnec [hp] z=0 m

Wind-Tunnel Tests

α=17°

ADAG RESEARCH ACTIVITIES (2)

• 2-D Airfoil Tests• 3-D aircraft model• 3-D semi-model

WINDWIND--TUNNEL TESTSTUNNEL TESTS

• MAIN LOW-SPEED DPA WIND TUNNEL

Test section dimensions 2.0 m x 1.4 mMaximum speed 150 Km/hTurbulence level 0.1%

WINDWIND--TUNNEL TESTSTUNNEL TESTSAIRFOIL TESTS

More than 20 airfoil tested since 1990• NACA, SM701, internally developed airfoils• Multi-component airfoil tests

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Cl

α

LIFT CURVERe=1.1 mill.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

Cd

Cl

DRAG POLARRe=1.1 mill.

UPPER

SURFACE

flow direction

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Cp

x/c

α=10°Re=1.1 mill.

SL

RT

SL = SEPARAZIONE LAMINARERT = RIATTACCO TURBOLENTO

Bolla di separazione laminare

WINDWIND--TUNNEL TESTSTUNNEL TESTSAIRCRAFT 3D MODEL WIND-TUNNEL TESTS• Scale of about 1:5 for a light aircraft (Re ~ 0.5 mil.)

More than 20 aircraft (mainly G.A., light and ULM) tested in the last 15 years

Aerodynamic Design / Analysis (num. & experim)ADAG RESEARCH ACTIVITIES (3)

αR

TS

leading-edge bubble

TSR

TS

mid-chord bubble

vortex

wake

boundary-layer edge

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

x/c

Cp

VG1-13H airfoilalpha=15 Re=1.1 mil.

Numerical (TBVOR)

DPA wind tunnel tests

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

initialoptimized

Cp

x/c

alpha=0° Re=4e6initial opt

Cl .45 .43

Cd .0069 .0061 xtr up .38 .45xtr low .45 .52

Cmf -.100 -.102

NLF(1) AIRFOIL

Aircraft efficiency emprovement through b.l. unsteady blowing(num. & exp.)

Airfoil analysis, design and optimization

Wing-fuselage junction

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.20 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Cp

x/L

1

2

3

alpha=0 deg.ReL=18e6

TRANSITION LOCATIONS on upper midlineconf. 1 xtr=0.36 CD=0.0285 conf. 2 xtr=0.42 CD=0.0255 conf. 3 xtr=0.33 CD=0.0296

TR

EFFECT OF WING-FUSELAGE RELATIVE POSITION

1 2 3

Fuselage analysis and design Wing-tip and winglet design

AERODYNAMIC DESIGNAERODYNAMIC DESIGN

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

SM701SM701 optimized

SM701 airfoil - alpha=0° Re=2.5e6

Cp

x/c

SM701 SM701 optCl .52 .49Cmf -.116 -.117Cd .00634 .00535xtr up .44 .56xtr low .48 .47

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014

SM701SM701 opt

SM701 exp [ref.17]

SM701 DRAG POLARRe= 2.5 mill.

Cl

Cd

AIRFOIL DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION

FUSELAGES AND LOW DRAG BODIES DESIGN-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.20 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Cp

x/L

higher contractionoriginal

Pressure coeff. distrib. along upper midline

Transition

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.20 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Cp

x/L

alpha=0 deg.ReL=18e6

Pressure coeff. distribution

Original lenght L=7 mCockpit lenght increase = 20 cm

AERODYNAMIC DESIGNAERODYNAMIC DESIGNWING-FUSELAGE JUNCTION DESIGN

turbulentFlap

transition line

separation line

originaldesign

WING UPPER SURFACE

alpha=2.8° CL=1.01

wedge

Design of wing-fuselage junction for Antares Sailplane(@ TU Delft with Prof. L. Boermans)

FUSELAGE AND NACELLE INFLUENCE ON WING SPAN-LOADING

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1eta

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

c*C

l

sperimentale 4 gradinumerico 3.8 gradi

NUMERICAL & APPLIED AERODYNAMICSNUMERICAL & APPLIED AERODYNAMICSTurbulent flow control with unsteady blowing (wind-tunnel tests)

NUMERICAL & APPLIED AERODYNAMICSNUMERICAL & APPLIED AERODYNAMICSInduced drag reduction with multiple winglets

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4CL

CL3/

2 /CD

Total wing Short wing+5 Remiges Short Wing+3 Remiges

NUMERICAL & APPLIED AERODYNAMICSNUMERICAL & APPLIED AERODYNAMICSLight aircraft and General aviation winglet design

ADAG RESEARCH ACTIVITIES (4)Flight tests – Flight Mechanics - Flight Dynamics

Flight tests:- Light Aircraft Flight test certification (JAR VLA)- Performances flight meas. - AFM- Parametric Identification

Potentiometer

Inertial platform

Stick force

AIR Data Boom

Acquisition and control system

6-DOF flightsimulator

Parametric aerod deriv. Estimation. Flight qualities.

Ground Control Station

Flight simulator ADAG RESEARCH ACTIVITIES (4)

Cockpit Layout

• The Department together with TEST (Company) has recentlyacquired a 6 DOF Flight Simulator • Stick force reproduction

HOW ALL DISCIPLINES ARE INTEGRATED….

RENEWABLE ENERGIES RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

Design, building and testing of horizontal and vertical axis wind and water turbines Nov. 2006 we founded a SPIN-OFF

Company EOLPOWER SrlEOL-H5 5 KW Wind Generator(Production has started in 2009)

KOBOLD TurbineTo exploit tidal currents

Internationally patented

AIRCRAFT DESIGN @ University of Naples … started in early times….

1926 Prof. Gen. Umberto Nobile

AIRCRAFT DESIGN @ University of Naples … in the 50’s

Prof. L. Pascale

PARTENAVIA Company

AIRCRAFT DESIGN @ University of Naples PARTENAVIA company aircrafts

P.48 Astore P.52 TigrottoP.53 AeroscooterP.55 TornadoP.57 FachiroP.59 JollyP.64 Fachiro IIIP.64B OscarP.66B OscarP.66C CharlieP.66D DeltaP.66T CharlieP.68P.70 AlphaP.86 Mosquito

P52

P57

P66

P68 ObserverP68

AIRCRAFT DESIGN @ University of Naples … in the 90’s

TECNAM P92 and P96(Prof. L. Pascale)

G97 Spotter (1997-1999)Prof. V. Giordano

EASY-FLY (2003-2006)

AIRCRAFT DESIGN @ University of Naples … in the new century …

EASY-FLYNew STOL ULM in composite materialADAG – Group

Take-off

Landing40°15°

AIRCRAFT DESIGN @ University of Naples … in the new century …

Many new tecnam ULM and..

TECNAMP2006T(Prof. Pascale)

Many experiences in collaboration with Many experiences in collaboration with TecnamTecnam on design of many ULMon design of many ULM

P92 Echo (1992) P92J (1995) (Cert. VLA) P92 Sea-Sky

P96 Golf (1996)

P92JS

P92 2000 RG

P2002 Sierra (2002)

ADAG ADAG -- AIRCRAFT DESIGN RPV ACTIVITYAIRCRAFT DESIGN RPV ACTIVITY•• UAV and RADIOUAV and RADIO--CONTROLLED (RPV) MODEL DESIGNCONTROLLED (RPV) MODEL DESIGN

- Study an unmanned aircraft for observation-reconnaissance (UAV)- Analysis of canard influences on aircraft aerodynamics, static and dynamic

flying characteristics (the model can fly with and without canard)- Complete and accurate flight instrumentation for flight parameter

measurement and model maneuver analysis

EASY FLY PROJECT Conventional STOL light aircraft are characterized by a very “DIRTY” configuration

YUMA YUMA (foldable(foldable wing)wing)

SavannahSavannah

Zenair CH 701Zenair CH 701

EASY-FLYMAIN RESEARCH ACTIVITIES- 2D and 3-D HIGH LIFT SYSTEM DESIGN

3 1.9 1 01.7 1.32 4.01 4.03 3.971.8 3.83 3.95 3.99 3.931.88 3.87 4 4.02 3.87

2 3.79 4 3.98 3.88

OVERLAP

GA

P

EASY-FLY- 2D and 3-D HIGH LIFT SYSTEM WT TESTS

Wake rake

Slat(carbon fiber)

Wake rake

Slat(carbon fiber)

14 16 18 20 22 24 26alfa (°)

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

Cl

p1p2p3p4p5

Test Reynolds = 1.3 mil.

-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1x/c

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

-7

-8

-9

-10

-11

-12

-13

Cp

alfa: 24°interpolated dataexperimental data

Clslat: 0.97 Clmain: 2.66 Clflap: 0.313

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30alfa (°)

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Cl

25°35°39°

Cl_max=4.0 !

EASY-FLY- 2D and 3-D HIGH LIFT SYSTEM WT TESTS

Test Reynolds = 0.6 mil.

CL_max=3.1 !

-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24α(°)

1.2

1.6

2

2.4

2.8

3.2

3.6

CL vs α δF= 39° Slat

Wing-bodyTOT δs=0TOT δs=-10TOT δs=-25°

CL

EASY-FLY

DESIGN AND AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS AND OPTIMIZATION OF A LIGHT TWIN

ENGINE AIRCRAFT

L. Pascale F. Nicolosi

P2006T AIRCRAFTSince 2006 Tecnam has started his intention to enter the market with a new CS 23 certified 4 seat aircraft.

• In the last years, starting from the United States, the General Aviation has been revitalized, due to the necessity to decongest the classical skyway system and to use thousands of small airport in the country (AGATE , SATS).

MARKET ANALYSIS AND P2006 AIRCRAFT DESIGN ASPECTS

• The fast economical growth of developing countries (like in Africa, south-America and in south-east of Asia) that do not have developed transportation systems has pushed the use and the diffusion of light aircraft in those areas.

• In example in some remote area of south Africa the transport through light aircraft can be the only solution, taking into account the absence of asphalt roads and the low acquisition and maintenance costs of these kind of machines.

P2006T design aspects

USE: Tourist, Flight school, Monitoring (i.e. Police)

Rotax 912S (100 hp) used in ULM and VLASimple construction (Light and not expensive)Use of automotive gasoline (instead of AVGAS) (Rotax 912)Short TO and Landing (not prepared)4 seats – twin engines – light (to fly with two Rotax, 100hp

each).

Twin engine with the weight of a single-engine

Similar performances but with lower operative costscompared to single engine 4-seats aircraft.

P2006T

ROTAX 912 S (100 hp)- Certified- Use of automotive fuel

Advantages:

Lower frontal area (small and streamlined nacelle)Lower weight to power ratioLower specific consumptionLower rpm for the propeller (efficiency and noise)Water cooling (stable temp.)

ROTAX vs Lycoming

ROTAX 912S Lycoming IO-360Peso (a secco, senza accessori)

Potenza maxArea frontaleLarghezza massima

149 kg200 hp @2700

0.428 m^2867 mm

59 kg100 hp @2390

0.322 m^2575 mm

Consumo (75%) 46 l/hr19 l/hr

Comparison 2 Rotax vs 1 Lycoming

2 Rotax 912S 100hp + elica Ø1.78m vs

1 Lycoming 200hp + elica Ø1.88m

The higher thrust of Rotax912S is mainly due to the fact that the same engine power is distributed on much larger propeller disk area(area of two disks of 1.78 m diameter). Other small effect arises from lower rpm of Rotax912S (2390 instead of 2700) at maximum power conditions and lower correction due to small nacelles.

THRUST

It is possible to compare a twin-engine aircraft with single-engine ones.

P2006T empty weight is low compared to other twin-engine. The payload is higher !

=> high structural efficiency => good weight/power ratio of Rotax 912=> the two engines lower the flight loads on the wings

From an operating point of view, is worth to consider that the option to use automotive fuel instead of AVGAS allows P2006 operators to dramatically reduce direct costs, making also possible to fly in regional or remote areas where AVGAS is difficult to find or prohibitively expensive.

Aero 45NOT A VERY NEW IDEA !

4-seat aircraft - Two Walter 105 hp engMTOW 1600 Kg. The wing loading 88 Kg/m2

Maximum flight speed 270 Km/h.

P2006 CHARACTERISTICS

Wing span 11.2 m Cabin width 1.20 mMean geometric chord 1.32 m Wing Area S 14.76 m2

Aspect ratio 8.47 Length 8.30 m

Maximum Take-off weight 1160 Kg

P2006 CHARACTERISTICS Wing span 11.4 m Cabin width 1.20 m

Mean geom. chord 1.32 m Wing Area S 14.76 m2

Aspect ratio 8.8 Length 8.70 mMTOW 1180 Kg Empty weight 760 Kg

Design Specifications- Easy cabin access and cabin comfort - Spacious luggage compartment, - Reduced take-off run (<1500 ft) and take-off from not prepared runways- Cruise flight speed of about 140 Kts at flight altitude of 7000-8000 ft- Range higher than 500 nm- Installation of an AFCS (Automatic Flight Control System).

+ Wing pos => opt CG travelA e B

- A , nacelle not stream.- (prop clearance)

- Long nacelle=> High Tors Inertialloads on the wing

Negative aspects A- Cabin access- Higher landing gear

(=> Higher weight)- Possible ingestion

(not prepared runways)

Conf. C+ Cabin access+ Short & stream nacelle+ Aerodynamic (par area)+ Empty weight- CG travel

+ Yaw Mom (Vtail area)Conf. D

- Structural diff and high costs of twin boom- rear engine cooling- parassite area

Conf. E- rear engine cooling- interr flap on the wing- acoustical problems

(propeller behind the wing)

Chosen Configuration

• EASY ACCESS• LOW NACELLE DRAG, STRUCTURALLY SIMPLE, LOW WEIGHT• HIGH SPAN EFFICIENCY FACTOR WITHOUT COMPLEX FAIRING

• GOOD GROUND VISIBILITY• LOW EFFECT OF PROPELLERS ON LONG. STABILITY

• PROPELLERS NOT EXPOSED DURING TAKE-OFF

Disadvantages• CG TRAVEL• REFUELING and ENGINE SERVICING• FUSELAGE PODS FOR THE 2 MAIN LANDING GEARS

• HIGHER WEIGHT FOR THE MAIN LAND-GEAR STRUCTURE

Advantages

WING DESIGN

⇒Wing span b=11.20 mCHOSEN PLANFORM⇒ MAC shift toward aircraft nose⇒ RECTANGULAR FLAP (light and lower-cost flap)⇒ QUITE GOOD induced drag factor.⇒ GOOD and SAFE STALL PATH

Wing span b=11.20 m

Frise AileronNACA 63A412 mod

Slotted flapNACA 63A415 mod

Fuselage3D surfaces …

Tail

Nacelle

Low parassite drag

Low wetted area

Small and streamlined

All mov stabilator

⇒Struct simple⇒ Lower costs

VT Des. for VMC

⇒ VMC 1.1 Vs

WEIGHT

Empty weight Break-Down

Std Empty Weight=750 Kg

AERODYNAMIC NUMERICAL AND EXP ANALYSIS=> At DIAS – Univ of Naples

WIND-TUNNEL TESTS

• Scale 1:6.5• Reynolds = 0.6 mill.

LIFT (nacelle effect)

048.0CLNAC −=∆080.0=αCL

LIFT (stall path)

aileron

Alpha = 12°

WB mom curve

MAC %14 X WB_AC =

MAC %11X NACWB_AC =+

X_CG=25%Z_CG=-22%

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

-0.16

-0.12

-0.08

-0.04

0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2COMPLETE AIRCRAFT (fix trans)HP NEW and NAC NEW w exhaustEffect of stabilator deflection

ds -1.0°ds -3.5°ds -6.0°WB NAC NEW w exh

CM

CL

Long Stab & Control

No = 38% in cruise cond.

Pendular stability

CM_ds = 0.033 [1/°]

1.89 [1/rad]

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1COMPLETE AIRCRAFT (fix trans)HP NEW and NAC NEW w exhaustEffect of stabilator deflection

ds -1.0°ds -3.5°ds -6.0°

CD

CL^2

Trimmed polar

CDo =0.035 e=0.70

Trimmed conditions

Complete aircraft trimmed polar (NO WINGLET)

Flight polarCD0=0.0254 f=0.361m^2

Fuselage and nacelle effect on wing-span load

Numerical analysis

Fuselage and nacelle effect on wing-span loadWind-tunnel tests

Pressure taps on 4 sections along span0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0.8

0.4

0

-0.4

-0.8

-1.2

-1.6

WING-BODY + NACELLECp alpha=4°

st. 4st. 3st. 2st. 1

Cp

x/c

Fuselage and nacelle effect on wing-span loadWind-tunnel tests

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1eta

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

c*C

l

4 gradi sperimentale4.4 gradi numerico

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1eta

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

c*C

l

sperimentale 4 gradinumerico 3.8 gradi

+ experiment (wind-tunnel tests)

+ experiment (wind-tunnel tests)

____ numerical

____ numerical

Wing-body + nacellealpha=4°

Wing-body alpha=4°

Effects on span aerodynamic loading (certification & evaluation of flight loads)D point of Man. Diagram

CL=0.535n=3.8

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

CL=.55WINGW_BODYW_BODY+NAC(CONC.)W_BODY+NAC

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

c*Cl

eta

Effects on span aerodynamic loading (certification & evaluation of flight loads)

Up to 10% differenceIn “bending” moment@ junction

The calculation and experiments were able to demonstrate a possible 10% increase of aircraft weight to cert. authorities

0 1 2 3 4 5 6[ ]

0

1000

2000

3000

Bending Momentwingw_bodyw_body+nac(conc.)w_body+nac

WINGLET DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

⇒ After first flight without winglets it was noticed a low (even accettable for certification) RC in OEI cond.

⇒ Very important to improve induced drag⇒ Minor modification to the wing structure⇒ Contained increase of wing bending moment at root

(about 5-7%).

DESIGN⇒ HEIGHT limited to 60 cm.⇒ To include appropriate wing-winglet fairing wing span was changed from 11.20 to 11.40 m.⇒ The wetted area was only 1% higher of the original

tip⇒ Increase in bending moment was limited to 5%

WINGLET DESIGN

WINGLET A

WINGLET B

WINGLET aerodynamic effectsESTIMATED AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCES (OEI) - 6000 ft

MAX RC increase @ S/L

NO WLET WLET120 ft/min 320 ft/min

(ESTIMATIONS)

WINGLET TESTS• Wind-tunnel tests were performed on similar wingletshape mounted on an elliptical wing semi-model.

A

B

C

1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450

300

200

100

0

Ys [mm]

x [mm]

Winglet A

Winglet B

1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450

300

200

100

0

Ys [mm]

x [mm]

Winglet C

Winglet A

WINGLET WT TESTSAs numerical calculations both winglet A and B (with different and welldesigned root toe angles) showed an oswald factor gain of about 15%.

Wing tip => e=0.84

+ Wlet => e=0.99

WINGLET EFFECTS :=> FLIGHT TESTS The oswald factor should increase from

0.70 (model wt tests, including nacelleeffects) to about 0.85 !!

FINAL ESTIMATED DRAG POLAR CDo=0.027 (f=0.40 m2) e=0.85

WINGLET EFFECTSIn OEI condition RC was increased by 170 to 280 fpm !

(The pilot clearly noticed it !)W=1160 Kg

Assiemi strutturali…

…alla realtà…

…dal CATIA…

…dal CATIA…

…al prototipo…

Flight PerformancesPeso massimo al decolloCarico alareStall speed Stall speed flap downBest Rate-of climb-speed (Vy)

Take-off run - groundTake-off distanceMAX Rate of climb EFF CEILING

Max lev speedCruise 75% @ 7000ft

Autonomia specifica cruise 65%

1180 kg80 kg/m2

56 kts47 kts80 kts

235 m450 m1300 ft/m’ (6.6m/s)>15000 ft (4570m)

151 kts145 kts

7.5 km/ltCruise Range 600 nm

MAX Rate of climb (OEI) 300 ft/m’

General performance parameter introduced by Oswald NACA TR 408 of 1932 3/1

P

3/4TS

λλλ ⋅

=Λ

Weight/propulsive powerλt = W/(ηPa)Weight/effective wing spanλs = W/(eb2)

λp = W/f Weight/parassite areaRatios that indicates:

• Available Thrust energy• Energy used to produce Lift • Energy used to win flight drag

Indicates aircraft performancesLOWER Λ => HIGHER PERFORMANCES

Parametro di performance

APPLIED RESEARCH AND EDUCATION:In both research activities (EASY-FLY and P2006T) :

- 3 research contracts for DIAS - 6 months wind-tunnel tests (3 m. EASY-FLY, 3 m. P2006T)- 10 MSC thesis- 2 PHD thesis- 6 grants for graduated neo-engineers

ALL the research was really applied

2 of them were employed

THANKS FOR THE ATTENTION and…

…. See you soon …..